1     ^ 

! 

x.'vT 

Q. 

!      ^ 

1) 

J5 

!  > 

-^^^ 

, 

^<ii» 

H) 

-5 

.s 

Q- 

|25 

"o 

1        -^"^ 

5 

o 

0) 

c 

aSS 

<  - 

j 

W 

Eh 

"oi 

^ 

O 

3 

^          1 

«^ 

^ 

E 

sT 

^^ 

S 

CO 

4 

-i 

Ph 

^ 

>% 

1 

J3 

^           ^ 

*f» 

T3 

':> 

I 

*-• 

c 

(U 
0) 

8. 

1 

5^t 

/c/ 


Christian  Baptism : 


SUBJECTS  AND    MODE 


BY 


S.  M.^ERRILL,  D.  D., 

BISHOP   OF   THE   METHODIST   EPISCOPAL   CHURCH. 


CI  NCINN  ATI: 

HITCHCOCK     AND     \A/'ALDEN. 

NEW  YORK:    NELSON  &  PHILLIPS. 
1876. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1876,  by 

HITCHCOCK   &   WALDEN, 

In  the  Office  of  tlie  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


J-. 


"■>, 


PREFATORY  NOTE 


T  N  preparing  the  following  Discourses,  it 
-*-  has  not  been  my  aim  to  furnish  an  ex- 
haustive discussion  of  the  subject,  but  simply 
to  present  the  substance  of  the  arguments 
which  sustain  our  practice,  in  a  brief,  direct 
manner,  adapted  to  popular  use  rather  than 
to  the  wants  of  those  who  wish  to  master  the 
literature  of  this  great  discussion. 

I  entertain  no  thought  that  this  volume 
will  supersede  the  elaborate  works  on  Bap- 
tism, which,  by  reason  of  their  acknowledged 
superiority,  have  been  accepted  as  standards; 
but  I  have  been  impressed  that  these  excel- 
lent books  are  not  generally  read,  being 
seldom  found  except  in  the  libraries  of  the 
preachers,  while  in  many  sections  our  people 

3 


4  PREFATORY  NOTE. 

scarcely  ever  hear  the  subject  from  our 
pulpits.  There  are  hundreds  of  congrega- 
tions in  which  the  younger  members  never 
heard  a  sermon  on  Infant  Baptism,  and  prob- 
ably never  more  than  a  very  hasty  explana- 
tion of  our  practice  concerning  the  mode. 
The  result  is  that,  so  far  as  such  communities 
are  educated  at  all  on  this  subject,  it  is  under 
other  auspices  than  our  own,  and  by  no 
means  friendly  to  our  doctrines.  I  have 
thought  that  something  of  this  character,  in- 
expensive and  unpretentious,  ought  to  be 
offered  to  those  who  lack  time  or  disposition 
to  study  our  more  critical  works;  and  with 
this  view  I  send  out  these  Discourses,  be- 
lieving they  will  measurably  meet  a  real  want, 
and  contribute  toward  the  removal  of  the 
more   serious   difficulties   from   the  minds  of 

earnest  seekers  after  the  truth. 

S.  M.  M. 
St.  Paul,  Minn.,  March,  1876. 


(5_  <& 


'^\ 


CONTENTS.     '*^^-    ^ 


PAGE. 

I.  Spiritual  State  of  Infants,       ...  7 

II.  The  Abrahamic  Covenant,      ...  38 

III.  The  Oneness  of  the  Church,      ...  73 

IV.  Origin  of  Infant  Baptism,      .        .        .  106 
V.  Historical  Argument,         ....  137 

VI.  The  Nature  of  the  Word  Baptize,       .  172 

VII.  New  Testament  Baptisms,  ....  205 

VIII.  Buried  by  Baptism, 240 

IX.  Spirit  Baptism, 282 

5 


&'  '^*, 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTI^M^^ 


Discourse  I. 

SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS. 

"For  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." — Matt,  xix,  14. 

THE  subject  of  baptism  is  usually  con- 
sidered under  four  heads;  namely,  the 
obligation,  the  subjects,  the  mode,  and  the 
design.  The  obligation  rests  on  the  commis- 
sion which  Christ  gave  to  the  apostles  to 
make  disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  the  subsequent 
action  of  the  apostles,  which  indicates  their 
own  interpretation  of  the  command.  They 
administered  baptism  with  water  wherever 
they  preached  the  Gospel  and  established 
Churches,  showing  that  this  ordinance  was  to 
be   perpetuated   until  the  end  of  the  world. 

7 


8  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

I  shall  therefore  assume,  in  these  Discourses, 
that  the  duty  is  imposed  on  the  Church  to 
continue  the  practice  of  baptizing  with  water; 
and  opportunity  will  be  afforded,  in  consid- 
ering the  subjects  and  mode,  to  say  all  that 
needs  be  said  in  regard  to  the  design  of 
the  ordinance — unless,  perchance,  something 
should  be  said  concerning  the  false  uses  of 
the  rite,  growing  out  of  misconceptions  of  its 
design. 

I  now  proceed  to  consider  the  question, 
Who  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism? 

It  is  well  to  accept  the  fact,  in  the  outset, 
that  the  command  to  baptize  the  nations  is 
not  very  discriminating.  It  did  not  restrict 
the  apostles  to  males  or  females,  to  old  or 
young,  to  Jews  or  Gentiles;  and  yet  there  is 
no  doubt  that  the  consent  of  the  parties  to 
whom  the  ordinance  is  given  is  implied,  and 
therefore  there  must  be  some  limitation  that 
will  exclude  coercion  on  the  one  hand,  and 
notorious  wickedness  on  the  other.  In  other 
words,  the  Church  is  not  authorized  to  force 
the  rite  on  the  unwilling,  nor  is  she  at  liberty 
to  extend  the  privilege  to  the  profane  and 
impenitent.     With   no   other   limitation   now 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  9 

perceivable,  the  command  is  universal ;  and, 
under  its  wide  sweep  of  privilege,  the  nations 
may  be  placed  under  the  fostering  care  of  the 
Church,  for  the  purpose  of  instruction  and 
edification,  according  to  the  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Beyond  this  general  commission,  we  have 
no  authoritative  guide  in  determining  the 
proper  subjects  of  baptism  other  than  the 
example  of  the  apostles,  as  recorded  in  the 
Book  of  Acts,  with  the  incidental  allusions  to 
the  subject  in  the  inspired  Epistles.  The 
Church,  however,  has,  with  great  unanimity, 
and  in  all  ages,  accepted  the  fact  that  all  true 
believers  are  entitled  to  this  ordinance.  We 
have  some  examples,  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  of  persons  being  baptized  after  they 
had  become  true  believers,  and  had  obtained 
the  highest  possible  evidence  of  their  accept- 
ance before  God,  in  that  they  had  received 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  baptism  of 
Saul  of  Tarsus,  afterward  Paul,  the  apostle  to 
Gentiles;  and  the  baptism  of  the  first  Gentile 
converts,  under  the  preaching  of  Peter,  in  the 
house  of  Cornelius,  are  instances  of  this  kind. 
But,    since    there    is   no   dispute  in  regard  to 


10  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

this  class,  there  is  no  need  of  proofs.  There 
is,  however,  another  class,  concerning  whose 
fitness  for  baptism  under  the  designation  of 
ibelievers  there  has  been  some  question.  I 
refer  to  those  whom  we  call  penitents,  or 
seekers.  They  are  awakened,  and  have  be- 
come concerned  for  their  salvation;  they  ac- 
cept the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  concern- 
ing Jesus  Christ,  and  believe  him  to  be  the 
only  Savior  of  sinners;  they  have  confidence 
in  the  reality  of  the  experiences  of  those  in 
the  Church  who  declare  that  they  have  found 
peace  in  believing  and  have  obtained  in  their 
hearts  the  Spirit  of  adoption;  but  they  can 
not  claim  to  have  entered  into  the  rest  of 
faith.  Now,  the  question  is.  Can  such  seek- 
ers be  rightfully  admitted  to  baptism?  We 
answer  in  the  affirmative,  and  hesitate  not  to 
say  to  such,  as  Peter  did  to  a  similar  class  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  ''Repent,  and  be  bap- 
tized, every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  In  such 
case,  baptism  is  a  means  of  pardon,  because 
it  is  a  means  of  helping  the  seeker  to  come 
to   Christ,   that  he  may  be  justified  by  faith. 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  1 1 

Those  penitents,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
had  not  yet  obtained  pardon;  but  they  had 
been  *'cut  to  the  heart,"  and  had  been 
led  to  inquire,  ''Men  and  brethren,  what 
shall  we  do?"  They  had  not  yet  received 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  but  they  were 
convinced  of  sin,  and  had  become  real  pen- 
itents. In  that  condition  they  were  instructed 
to  be  baptized,  and  had  the  promise  that  they 
should  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  that  promise  was  made  in  such  connec- 
tion with  the  remission  of  sins  as  to  indicate 
that  the  gift  followed  remission.  When  Paul 
in  his  journey  came  to  Ephesus,  he  found 
certain  disciples  who  had  not  been  led  into 
the  full  faith  of  the  Gospel,  with  its  assurance 
of  heirship  in  the  divine  family,  and  Paul 
propounded  to  them  the  test  question,  ''Have 
ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  be- 
lieved?" When  they  answered  that  they  had 
not,  Paul  instructed  them  more  fully;  and 
under  his  teaching  they  w^ere  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  they  had  previously  been  baptized 
with  John's  baptism.  Then,  after  their  bap- 
tism,   when    Paul   had    laid    his    hands    upon 


12  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them.  This, 
then,  is  plainly  another  example  of  the  bap- 
tism of  seekers,  or  real  penitents. 

I  come  now  to  speak  of  another  class, 
concerning  whose  fitness  for  baptism  there 
has  been  much  dispute  in  the  Church,  and 
perhaps  will  be  until  the  dawn  of  that  day 
when  all  true  watchmen  on  Zion's  walls  shall 
see  eye  to  eye — I  mean  young  children,  or 
infants.  In  speaking  of  infants  as  proper 
subjects  of  baptism,  I  am  happy  in  consider- 
ation of  the  fact  that  I  am  simply  defending 
the  practice  of  our  own  Church,  and  do  not 
find  it  necessary  to  assail  the  practice  of  any 
denomination,  or  any  class  of  Christian  peo- 
ple. There  are  those  who  do  not  see  fit  to 
baptize  little  children,  and  can  not  be  per- 
suaded that  duty  calls  in  that  direction.  The 
practice  is  odious  to  them,  and  they  want 
nothing  to  do  with  it;  the  subject,  therefore, 
is  not  theirs,  but  ours.  In  advocating  the 
practice,  we  are  simply  taking  care  of  our 
own ;  and,  if  the  elaborate  discussion  of  the 
subject  is  unpleasant  to  our  neighbors,  I  have 
only  to  say  that  the  necessity  for  it  arises 
from    the    virulence    and    persistence   of  the 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  1 3 

attacks  made  upon  our  practice  by  those  who 
do  not  beHeve  in  it. 

As  a  Church,  we  affirm  the  practice  of  in- 
fant baptism,  and  therefore,  at  first  blush,  the 
burden  of  proof  rests  upon  us.  We  are 
rightfully  called  upon  to  state  the  reasons  for 
our  faith,  and  the  ground  of  our  practice. 
This  duty  we  most  cheerfully  undertake ;  and 
yet  it  is  not  improper  to  remark  that  a  point 
will  be  reached  in  the  discussion  when  the 
laboring  oar  will  shift  hands,  and  the  respon- 
sibility will  devolve  on  the  opponents  of  the 
practice  of  proving  that  it  is,  as  they  affirm, 
an  innovation,  brought  into  the  Church  with- 
out divine  authority,  after  the  apostles  were 
dead.  That  time  will  come  when  we  shall 
have  seen,  from  the  terms  of  the  commission 
to  baptize  the  nations,  and  from  the  knowl- 
edge they  had  of  baptism  in  Jewish  practice, 
that  the  apostles  would  necessarily  understand 
the  command  as  authorizing  the  baptism  of 
infants,  unless  specifically  instructed  to  the 
contrary;  and  when  we  shall  see,  from  the 
record  of  their  practice,  and  from  the  history 
of  the  institution,  that  they  did  so  understand 
the    commission,    and    practice    accordingly. 


14  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

But,  for  the  present,  we  turn  our  attention  to 
the  affirmative  arguments  which  we  suppose 
are  sufficient  to  justify  the  practice. 

And  yet  another  preHminary  remark  will 
be  in  place.  It  is  that  any  duty  that  is  indi- 
rectly taught  in  the  Scriptures,  so  that  the 
knowledge  of  it  is  gained  by  legitimate  infer- 
ence or  rational  deduction,  is  just  as  binding 
as  if  presented  in  positive  precept.  All 
Christians  acknowledge  the  principle  con- 
tained in  this  statement,  and  practice  duties, 
the  knowledge  of  which  is  obtained  in  this 
way.  For  instance,  there  is  no  positive  pre- 
cept or  injunction  directing  that  women  be 
admitted  to  the  Lord's-supper;  and  yet  there 
are  such  facts  stated,  and  such  principles 
inculcated,  as  to  leave  no  doubt  in  the  rea- 
soning mind  that  the  practice  of  admitting 
them  is  lawful.  There  is  no  positive  com- 
mand in  the  Scriptures  for  observing  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  instead  of  the  seventh,  as 
the  day  of  rest  and  worship ;  and  yet  we  find 
ample  authority  for  this  in  the  facts  and  prin- 
ciples laid  down,  so  that,  although  the, con- 
clusion is  reached  by  inference,  it  is  sound 
and   satisfactory.      The    immediate   design  of 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  I  5 

the  Christian  revelation  is  to  instruct  us  in 
the  way  of  salvation,  and  to  furnish  the  world 
with  germs  of  thought  to  be  nourished  with 
divine  grace,  and  developed  into  the  strength 
and  beauty  of  the  Christian  life.  It  is  there- 
fore to  be  expected  that  much  of  the  light 
the  Scriptures  shed  upon  the  moral  condition 
and  Church  relations  of  little  children  will 
come  to  us  incidentally,  and  require  the  ex- 
ercise of  reason  and  the  observance  of  just 
laws  of  interpretation.  I  shall  therefore  not 
hesitate  to  assume  that  rational  deductions 
from  the  facts  and  principles  found  in  the 
Scriptures  are  to  be  respected  to  the  full  ex- 
tent of  their  legitimacy,  and  to  be  feared  or 
discredited  only  by  those  who  find  their  dog- 
mas better  served  by  ^/rational  deductions. 

What,  then,  is  the  moral  status,  or  the 
spiritual  state,  of  little  children?  Are  they 
eligible  to  any  Church  privilege  or  religious 
ordinance?  Has  God  ever,  by  word  or  act, 
spoken  on  this  subject,  so  that  his  voice  can 
be  interpreted?  And  what  are  the  principles 
involved  in  infant  baptism?  Do  these  prin- 
ciples indicate  any  thing  as  to  the  propriety 
or    impropriety    of    this    practice  ?      These 


1 6  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

questions  open  a  wide  field,  much  wider  than 
I  shall  be  able,  in  my  prescribed  limits,  thor- 
oughly to  explore;  and  yet  I  hope  to  make 
such  incursions,  and  sufficiently  careful  ob- 
servations, as  to  mark  out  the  pathway  to 
right  conclusions.  And  I  feel  other  restraints 
than  those  imposed  by  limits  as  to  time. 
There  are  elaborate  investigations  of  a  critical 
character  som^etimes  indulged  in  connection 
with  this  subject,  investigations  suitable  to 
the  stately  volume;  but  my  remarks  must  be 
less  critical,  because  they  must  be  adapted  to 
the  pulpit,  and  hence  to  the  popular  assem- 
bly, rather  than  to  the  private  study  of  the 
student.  I  desire  so  to  present  the  subject 
that  the  ordinary  reader  of  the  Scriptures  can 
comprehend  the  argument,  and  verify  the  po- 
sitions taken. 

Let  us,  then,  look  at  the  New  Testament 
teaching  in  regard  to  the  spiritual  state  of 
little  children,  and  ascertain,  from  their  rela- 
tion to  Christ  and  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
whether  they  have  any  rights  which  the 
Church  dares  respect.  If  they  are  left  with- 
out the  covenant  of  grace,  and  have  no  inter- 
est in  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  no  standing  in 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  1 7 

the  family  of  God;  and  if  their  relation  to 
the  Church  is  ignored,  and  the  duty  of  the 
Church  toward  them  is  undefined,  we  ought 
to  know  the  fact,  however  sad  and  dismal 
the  thought,  and  however  chilling  to  the  best 
feeling  of  our  hearts  such  a  discovery  must 
inevitably  be.  There  is  no  motive  for  self- 
deception  here,  and  no  comfort  in  building 
upon  an  insufficient  foundation.  But,  breth- 
ren, the  study  of  the  New  Testament  on  this 
subject  leaves  no  sting  behind.  All  its  utter- 
ances, however  brief,  are  singularly  compre- 
hensive, and  full  of  comfort.  ''It  is  not  the 
will  of  your  Father  in  heaven  that  one  of 
these  little  ones  should  perish." 

Infants  ozve  their  existence  to  Christ  and  his 
7'edemption.  I  mean  by  this  more  than  that 
he  is  the  Creator  of  all  things  and  the  giver 
of  life,  as  in  his  divine  nature  he  is  God  over 
all.  I  disallow  the  assumption,  that,  if  no 
redemption  had  been  provided,  the  posterity 
of  Adam  would  have  lived,  suffered,  and  died 
in  sin,  and  claim  that  under  a  rigorous  ad- 
ministration of  the  law,  in  the  absence  of 
redeeming  grace,  the  penalty  of  the  first 
transgression  would  have  cut  off  the  first 
2 


1 8  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

offenders  without  offspring;  so  that,  as  Mr. 
Fletcher  says,  "the  only  conscious  sinners 
would  have  been  the  only  conscious  suffer- 
ers." Why  was  it  that  that  penalty  was  not 
inflicted  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  and  to  the 
extent  of  unbending  justice?  How  came  it 
that  the  execution  was  stayed,  the  penalty 
suspended,  the  new  probation,  instituted,  and 
that  the  guilty  pair  were  spared  to  propagate 
their  species  under  the  new  terms  of  life? 
It  was  simply  because  mercy  intervened, 
and  the  promised  redemption  intercepted  the 
stroke  of  justice,  and  rescued  the  living  sin- 
ners from  their  dreaded  doom,  and  their  pos- 
terity from  the  everlasting  reign  of  seminal 
death. 

Had  there  been  no  redemption,  the  devel- 
opment of  creation  in  the  positive  existence 
of  the  race  had  not  occurred;  and  then,  of 
course,  there  had  been  no  infants  on  earth. 
The  fact  that  they  exist  is  proof  that  Christ 
died  for  them,  and  that  they  are  included  in 
the  covenant  of  redemption.  He  who  died 
for  the  race  died  for  every  child  of  Adam. 
We  thus  start  out  in  the  contemplation  of 
infantile  life  with  the  assurance  that  it  is  the 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  1 9 

purchase   of  the   Redeemer's   blood,   and   has 
some  place  in  the  economy  of  grace. 

Infants  are  subjects  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Of  this  significant  fact  we  have  the  most  pos- 
itive proof  "And  they  brought  unto  him 
also  infants,  that  he  would  touch  them;  but 
when  his  disciples  saw  it  they  rebuked  them. 
But  Jesus  called  them  unto  him,  and  said, 
Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and 
forbid  them  not:  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  God."  This  declaration  settles  forever  the 
fact  that  infants  belong  to  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  and  the  further  fact  that  their  relation 
to  the  kingdom  entitles  them  to  be  known 
and  acknowledged  by  the  disciples  of  Christ 
as  sustaining  so  important  a  relation  to  him. 
The  objectors  to  infant  baptism  have  some- 
times raised  a  question  here  as  to  whether 
Christ  really  intended  to  say  that  infants  them- 
selves are  "of  the  kingdom,"  or  whether  the 
word  "such"  in  his  statement  did  not  mean 
that  only  those  who  humble  themselves  and 
become  like  little  children  are  subjects  of  the 
kingdom.  The  question  is  scarcely  worthy  of 
mention,  as  it  does  not  reach  the  dignity  of 
criticism;   and  yet  to  pass  it  by  might  seem 


20  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

like  overlooking  the  only  show  of  opposition 
this  part  of  our  argument  has  encountered. 
The  fact  that  the  Savior  assigned  member- 
ship in  the  kingdom  of  God  as  the  reason  for 
admitting  their  approach  to  him,  and  for  his 
personal  treatment  of  them,  proves  beyond 
all  reasonable  doubt  that  he  meant  to  affirm, 
in  the  most  literal  manner,  that  they  them- 
selves belong  to  that  kingdom.  To  deny  this 
throws  a  shade  of  uncertainty  over  all  his 
language  and  conduct,  and  involves  serious 
absurdities.  Why  should  he  tell  the  people 
that  they  must  be  like  little  children  in  order 
to  enter  the  kingdom,  if  the  little  children 
were  not  themselves  in  the  kingdom?  How 
could  they  serve  his  purpose  as  models  of  fit- 
ness for  a  relation  which  they  themselves  did 
not  possess?  But  a  few  quotations  will  show 
the  folly  of  this  attempt  to  cast  doubt  upon 
the  meaning  of  the  language  before  us.  Mat- 
thew ix,  8:  ''But  when  the  multitudes  saw 
it,  they  marvelled,  and  glorified  God,  who 
had  given  such  power  unto  men."  Did  not 
this  mean  the  identical  power  they  had  seen 
displayed,  and  all  like  it?  Mark  ii,  2:  ''And 
what  wisdom  is  this  which  is  given  unto  him, 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  21 

that  even  such  mighty  works  are  wrought  by 
his  hands?"  Does  this  word  ''such"  exclude 
the  mighty  works  which  the  people  had  just 
seen?  Mark  iv,  33:  "And  with  many  siich 
parables  spake  he  the  Avord  unto  them." 
Does  not  this  mean  the  very  parables  here 
recorded,  as  well  as  others?  Luke  xiii,  2: 
"Suppose  ye  that  these  Galileans  were  sin- 
ners above  all  the  Galileans,  because  they 
suffered  such  things?"  What  things?  Un- 
questionably the  very  thing  specified,  as  well 
as  others  of  like  character.  To  multiply  quo- 
tations would  be  superfluous.  The  expres- 
sion means  that  infants,  and  all  who  resemble 
them  in  moral  dispositions,  compose  the  king- 
dom of  God.  The  meaning  and  significance 
of  this  membership  in  the  kingdom  will  appear 
in  another  place;  and  yet  it  may  be  well  to 
remark  that  the  phrase  "the  kingdom  of  God," 
and  the  other  phrase  found  in  parallel  pas- 
sages, "the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  mean  the 
kingdom  of  God's  grace  on  earth,  and  also 
his  visible  kingdom  or  Church,  indicating  in 
the  clearest  manner  that  the  subjects  of  his 
grace  are  entitled  to  recognition  as  members  of 
his  Church,  according  to  their  age  and  ability. 


22  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Infants  are  in  a  state  of  gracious  acceptance 
before  God.  This  is  implied  in  what  has  been 
said,  but  deserves  a  fuller  elucidation.  They 
are  not  only  included  in  the  covenant  of  re- 
demption, without  which  they  could  not  have 
been  born,  but  they  are,  by  virtue  of  their 
relation  to  Christ  and  their  interest  in  his 
atoning  death,  so  affected  by  it  as  to  have 
their  existence  begun  in  entire  exemption 
from  condemnation  on  account  of  their  rela- 
tion to  Adam,  or  the  corruption  of  nature 
inherited  from  him.  I  do  not  forget,  at  this 
point,  that  the  moral  condition  of  infants  has 
been  the  subject  of  warm  discussion  among 
those  who  agree  to  their  baptism,  as  well  as 
Avith  those  who  deny  them  this  rite ;  nor  do  I 
expect,  in  my  hasty  notice  of  the  point,  to 
answer  all  the  queries  that  arise  touching  the 
methods  of  grace  in  working  salvation  for  the 
little  ones;  but  I  hope  to  reach  firm  footing 
for  all  the  purposes  of  the  present  argument. 

It  is  necessary,  in  order  to  a  clear  under- 
standing of  the  subject,  to  consider  the  fact 
that  all  infants  sustain  a  twofold  relation — the 
natural  relation  to  Adam,  from  whom  they 
are   descended ;    and   the   spiritual   relation  to 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  23 

Christ,  by  whom  they  are  redeemed.  From 
Adam  they  inherit  the  fallen,  sinful  nature, 
with  all  its  tendencies  to  evil;  and  this  cor- 
ruption of  nature  is  not  a  mere  figure  of 
speech.  The  tremendous  fact  of  native  de- 
pravity stares  us  in  the  face,  not  only  when 
we  look  into  the  Bible,  but  when  we  study 
the  impulses  and  passions  of  our  own  hearts, 
and  when  we  look  out  upon  the  manifesta- 
tions of  human  nature  in  every  department 
of  human  life.  The  mystery  that  puzzles  our 
profoundest  thought  is  the  fact  that  this  na- 
tive tendency  to  sin  remains  in  the  heart 
during  the  innocency  of  childhood,  notwith- 
standing the  unquestionable  assurance  given 
us  that  these  little  ones  are  the  objects  of  the 
Savior's  solicitude,  and  subjects  of  his  king- 
dom, and  heirs  of  his  spiritual  benediction. 
We  are  restrained  by  the  overwhelming  testi- 
monies in  the  case  from  accepting  any  state- 
ment of  gracious  influence  upon  them  that 
destroys  or  eradicates  from  their  being  the 
germs  of  inherited  evil.  Their  Adamic  nature 
remains  intact.  They  are  born  after  the  flesh, 
and  embryo  carnal  affections  are  born  within 
them.      In  all  we  say  of  their  gracious  state, 


24  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

we  dare  not  imply  aught  against  the  fact  that 
all  men  are  fallen  in  Adam;  but  the  mitigat- 
ing thought  is  that  this  fall  does  not  bring 
personal  guilt,  and  that  the  coetaneous  rela- 
tion to  Christ  brings  a  germ  of  spiritual  life, 
such  as  can  coexist  in  the  heart  with  the 
primal  bias  to  evil.  That  such  a  state  of 
coincident  occupancy  is  possible  is  illustrated 
in  the  experience  of  the  justified  man;  for 
within  him  there  must  be  the  beginnings  of 
spiritual  life;  and  yet  the  native  tendency  to 
evil  is  not  eradicated,  but  remains  and  mani- 
fests itself  in  the  strivings  of  the  flesh  against 
the  spirit.  What,  then,  is  the  true  spiritual 
state  of  infants,  resultant  from  the  twofold  re- 
lation Avhich  we  have  been  considering?  It 
is,  in  my  judgment,  not  wise  or  proper  to 
affirm  infant  regeneration ;  for  we  know  of  no 
spiritual  process  that  takes  place  in  the  infant 
soul  that  answers  to  the  act  of  regeneration 
as  taught  in  the  Scriptures;  and  yet  they  are 
in  the  kingdom,  and  so  eminently  qualified 
for  the  kingdom  that  they  are  held  up  as 
models;  so  that,  unless  adults  become  "like" 
them,  they  can  not  enter  .the  kingdom.  We 
are   therefore   led   to   conclude,    that,   without 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  25 

the  formal  process  of  regeneration,  and  with- 
out any  appreciable  exercise  of  active  spiritual 
agency,  they  are,  '^by  virtue  of  the  uncondi- 
tional benefits  of  the  atonement,"  placed  in 
such  a  state  of  gracious  acceptance  as  answers 
to  the  gracious  state  reached  by  adults  only 
through  justifying  faith.  We  can  not  reckon 
their  spiritual  condition  lower  than  this  and 
leave  them  in  the  kingdom;  nor  can  we  as- 
sign to  them  a  more  positive  spiritual  life 
without  supposing  a  direct  action  of  the  Spirit 
within  them  that  would  destroy  the  carnal 
affection,  which  is  not  destroyed.  Here,  then, 
we  leave  them,  and  ask  whether  the  Scrip- 
tures warrant  this  representation. 

We  read  in  Matthew  xviii,  1-3:  ''At  the 
same  time  came  the  disciples  unto  Jesus,  say- 
ing, Who  is  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven?  And  Jesus  called  a  little  child  unto 
him,  and  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them,  and 
said,  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  Except  ye  be 
converted,  and  become  as  little  children,  }'e 
shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
On  every  occasion  when  Christ  alluded  to 
"little  children,"  he  connected  them  with 
the    kingdom    of   heaven;    and    by   repetition 


26  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

he  sought  to  impress  the  minds  of  his  disci- 
ples favorably  with  regard  to  their  spiritual 
standing.  But  here  we  notice  not  merely  the 
relation  of  the  children  to  the  kingdom,  but 
the  two  significant  statements  in  regard  to 
adults.  The  first  is,  that  they  must  **  become 
like  little  children."  This  "likeness"  may 
imply  a  resemblance  in  disposition,  in  docil- 
ity, or  teachableness;  but  it  is  most  natural 
to  interpret  it  of  that  in  the  children  that  fits 
them  for  the  kingdom;  and  this  takes  us 
beyond  their  natural  dispositions,  their  hu- 
mility and  teachableness,  to  their  gracious 
state,  as  affected  by  their  spiritual  relation  to 
Christ.  The  second  statement  in  regard  to 
adults  confirms  this  view ;  for  it  is  that,  in 
order  to  become  ''like  little  children,"  they 
must  be  "converted."  Now,  that  "likeness" 
which  results  from  conversion  is  a  spiritual 
likeness,  and  conversion  does  introduce  the 
converted  person  into  a  spiritual  state  which 
is  easily  distinguished  from  the  process  of 
conversion;  and  that  spiritual  state  is  one  of 
gracious  acceptance  with  God,  and  corre- 
sponds essentially  with  the  gracious  state  of 
infants.      Here  is  a  real  "hkeness,"  and  one 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  2/ 

based  on  something  immediately  connected 
with  membership  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
We  therefore  do  no  violence  to  the  passage 
by  paraphrasing  it  on  this  wise:  ** Except  ye 
who  have  committed  actual  sins,  and  have 
fallen  under  condemnation,  shall  now  repent 
and  be  converted,  and  thereby  be  delivered 
from  the  reigning  power  of  sin,  and  be  re- 
stored to  a  state  of  gracious  acceptance,  such 
as  was  yours  in  childhood, '  before  the  com- 
mission of  sin,  and  such  as  belongs  to  all 
little  children,  ye  can  not  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven."  If  this  is  the  sense  of  ^the 
Savior's  words,  and  there  is  certainly  no  good 
ground  for  doubting  it,  all  I  have  said  of  the 
gracious  state  of  "little  children"  is  fully 
justified.  They  are  not  only  in  the  king- 
dom, but  they  are  in  the  moral  condition 
into  which  adults  enter  by  conversion.  With- 
out the  process  of  regeneration — a  term  which 
applies  only  to  adults — infants  are  in  a  state 
of  salvation,  that  corresponds,  as  nearly  as 
we  can  trace  resemblances  in  such  a  case, 
with  the  state  of  salvation  enjoyed  by  the 
justified  believer  in  Christ.  Then,  if  they 
are  capable  of  any  religious  rite  at  all,  as  we 


28  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

shall  see  they  are,  they  are  just  as  fit  for 
baptism  as  they  are  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven. 

Infants  are  classed  with  believers,  and  are  to 
be  treated  as  believers.  There  are  but  two 
kingdoms  in  the  universe  that  we  know  any 
thing  about.  The  one  is  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  the  other  is  the  kingdom  of  the 
devil.  We  have  seen  to  which  of  these 
kingdoms  the  little  ones  belong.  Happy  for 
us  that  on  this  point  we  are  not  left  to  con- 
jecture. There  are  also  two  classes  into 
which  the  whole  human  family  may  be  di- 
vided, in  the  light  of  the  Scriptures;  namely, 
believers  and  unbelievers.  In  making  this 
division,  we  might  not  be  able  to  make  the 
assignments  correctly,  in  every  case ;  but  He 
who  sees  the  heart,  and  discerns  the  "spirit 
of  faith"  w^here  we  could  not  see  it,  can  draw 
the  dividing  line  with  unerring  exactness. 
But  there  are  some  very  marked  characters 
whom  we  can  classify  according  to  the  infal- 
lible judgment  of  the  Word  of  God.  The 
question  I  wish  here  to  propound  is,-  On 
which  side  of  the  line  that  separates  between 
believers  and   unbelievers   shall  we  place  the 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS. 


29 


children  ?  Shall  we  classify  them  with  be- 
lievers or  unbelievers?  Before  deciding  this 
question,  it  should  be  remarked,  further,  that 
these  two  classes,  if  the  Gospel  com.mission 
were  fully  carried  out,  might  be  distinguished 
as  the  baptized  and  unbaptized,  as  the  saved 
and  unsaved.  The  subjects  of  salvation,  in 
the  contemplation  of  the  Scriptures,  consist 
of  baptized  believers;  and  the  unsaved  are 
the  unbaptized  unbelievers.  Of  course,  this 
commission  is  not  perfectly  carried  out — so 
that  some  of  the  saved  are  not  formally  bap- 
tized, and  some  of  the  baptized  are  not  saved. 
The  lines  of  the  visible  Church  do  not  quad- 
rate perfectly  with  those  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  But  I  am  now  speaking  of  the  perfect 
classification,  as  it  would  be  under  the  per- 
fect application  of  the  Gospel  commission  to 
the  entire  race.  Where,  then,  should  we  place 
the  children?  I  doubt  not  that  every  heart 
responds,  quite  regardless  of  creeds,  The  little 
ones  belong  to  the  company  of  believers! 
yes,  of  baptized  believers !  We  dare  not 
class  them  with  the  unbaptized  unbelievers. 
They  are  not  unbelievers.  They  can  not 
disbelieve,   and,   until  they  become  unbeliev- 


30  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ers,  they  have  all  the  spiritual  relation  to 
Christ  and  his  kingdom  that  faith  implies, 
and  which  to  the  adult  is  secured  only  by 
faith.  We  therefore,  when  met  by  the  ob- 
jector with  the  announcement  that  they  can 
not  believe,  and  therefore  must  not  be  treated 
as  believers,  retort,  with  all  emphasis,  ^^  Nay^ 
sir;  they  caii  not  disbelieve.'' 

And  that  they  are  properly  classed  with 
believers,  and  accounted  believers,  and  treated 
as  believers  in  the  Church  of  God,  is  evident 
from  the  incident,  a  part  of  which  has  been 
cited.  I  read  the  whole  paragraph,  Matthew 
xviii,  1-6:  ''At  the  same  time  came  the  dis- 
ciples unto  Jesus,  saying.  Who  is  the  greatest 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven?  And  Jesus  called 
a  little  child  unto  him,  and  set  him  in  the 
midst  of  them,  and  said.  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as 
little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  .heaven.  Whosoever  therefore 
shall  humble  himself  as  this  little  child,  the 
same  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
And  whoso  shall  receive  one  such  little  child 
in  my  name  receiveth  me.  But  whoso  shall 
offend  one  of  these  little  ones  which  believe 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  3 1 

in  me,  it  were  better  for  him  that  a  millstone 
were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  that  he 
were  drowned  in  the  depth  of  the  sea." 

The  only  way  to  modify  the  meaning  I 
have  given  this  passage  is  to  show  that  the 
"little  child"  which  was  set  in  the  midst  of 
the  disciples  was  not  a  little  child,  in  the 
sense  of  being  an  infant,  or  under  the  years 
of  responsible  moral  action.  Indeed,  the 
effort  has  been  made  to  this  end,  some  sup- 
posing this  necessary  because  of  the  descrip- 
tion in  the  latter  part  of  the  passage,  ''One 
of  these  little  ones  which  believe  in  me." 
But  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  "little  child," 
and  the  "little  ones  which  believe,"  are  of 
the  same  class,  and  that  the  little  child  in  the 
midst  of  the  disciples  represented  the  whole 
class.  In  other  words,  there  is  no  difference 
as  to  rank  between  the  one  in  the  presence 
of  the  disciples  and  the  ones  that  are  said  to 
believe.  Then,  was  the  little  child  called  and 
set  in  their  midst  a  young  child  or  infant?  or 
was  it  a  youth,  ea^pable  of  believing  and  being 
converted?  If  the  latter,  the  whole  force  of 
the  lesson  given  to  the  disciples  is  lost,  and 
the  illustration  is  one  the  pertinency  of  which 


32  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

it  is  difficult  to  understand.  Indeed,  the  entire 
incident  becomes  misleading,  unless  the  little 
child  was  an  infant,  for  the  reason  that  in  an- 
other place  we  have  the  same  illustration  in 
regard  to  entering  into  the  kingdom,  when 
the  little  children  present,  and  pointed  to  as 
models  of  fitness,  are  distinctly  called  infants. 
I  refer  to  Luke  xviii,  15-17:  ''And  they 
brought  unto  him  also  infants,  that  he  would 
touch  them;  but  when  his  disciples  saw  it, 
they  rebuked  them.  But  Jesus  called  them 
unto  him,  and  said.  Suffer  little  children  to 
come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not :  for  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily  I  say 
unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the 
kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child  shall  in  no 

o 

wise  enter  therein."  Here  the  little  children 
are  infants,  brought  by  their  parents ;  and 
yet  he  called  them  to  him,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  little  child  in  the  other  instance.  And 
then,  after  pronouncing  them  subjects  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  he  tells  those  present  that 
they  can  only  receive  the  kingdom,  or  enter 
into  it,  by  becoming  Hke  these  little  children. 
The  illustration  is  the  same,  and  the  lesson  is 
the  same,  in  both  instances ;  and  therefore  the 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  33 

little  children  are  of  the  same  class,  while  in 
one  instance  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they 
were  infants.  And  the  word  rendered  ''little 
child,"  in  the  passage  in  question,  where  the 
little  ones  that  believe  in  Christ  are  men- 
tioned, is  the  same  that  is  used  with  reference 
to  the  infant  Jesus,  in  every  instance,  until 
after  his  return  from  Egypt.  It  occurs  where 
the  Savior  speaks  of  ''babes;"  and  here,  in 
the  passage  just  cited,  it  is  used  of  the  same 
that  are  called  infants.  They  are  infants — 
brephos — in  the  beginning  of  the  passage, 
where  they  are  brought  to  Jesus ;  and  imme- 
diately, when  they  are  held  up  as  models  of 
fitness  for  the  kingdom,  they  are  "little  chil- 
dren"— the  same  class  as  the  "little  ones 
that  beheve. "  Now,  from  all  this,  it  is  ap- 
parent that  the  assumption  that  the  little 
child,  which  Jesus  set  in  the  midst  of  the 
disciples,  was  a  youth  old  enough  to  be  con- 
verted, is  at  variance  with  all  the  facts,  and 
utterly  inadmissible.  And  the  interpretation 
which  claims  that  the  Savior  had  ceased  to 
speak  of  the  little  child  before  them,  and  of 
little  ones  of  that  class,  and  had  begun  to 
speak  of  those  who  had  become  like  them  by 
3 


34  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

conversion,  and  had  only  the  converted  adults 
in  mind,  when  he  mentioned  ''these  little 
ones  which  believe  in  me,"  is  purely  fanciful, 
without  authority,  and  unnecessary  to  meet 
any  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  most  natural 
import  of  the  words.  Such  a  transition  of 
thought  seems  to  me  to  be  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. In  one  sentence  it  is  ''this  little  child;" 
in  the  next,  it  is  "one  such  little  child;"  and 
in  the  next,  it  is  "one  of  these  little  ones 
which  believe  in  me."  The  only  real  neces- 
sity in  the  case  is  to  find  a  good,  proper 
sense,  in  which  these  "little  ones"  can  be 
said  to  "believe."  I  submit  that  we  have 
done  this.  They  could  not  believe  as  do 
adults;  but  they  were  in  possession  of  the 
spiritual  blessings,  and  of  the  relation  to 
Christ,  which  adults  only  receive  by  believ- 
ing; and  in  view  of  their  spiritual  union  with 
himself,  and  of  their  being  in  the  state  of 
salvation  which  believers  have  by  faith,  the 
Savior,  by  an  easy  figure  of  speech,  called 
them  believers,  in  order  to  class  them  with 
believers,  and  to  indicate  their  fitness  to  be 
treated  as  believers.  This  is,  therefore,  their 
proper  status  in  the  Church;  and  in  claiming 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  35 

for  them  the  relation,  the  moral  standing,  and 
the  treatment  of  believers,  we  are  not  going 
beyond  the  record.  Nothing  but  the  guilt 
of  unbelief  can  cut  them  off  from  this  rela- 
tion; and  the  solemn  warning  against  ''of- 
fending" them,  or  ensnaring  them  so  as  to 
cause  them  to  offend,  is  a  most  significant 
intimation  of  the  importance  attaching  to 
their  proper  treatment. 

But  if  they  are  to  be  treated  as  believers, 
and  if  they  are  to  be  ''received  in  the  name 
of  Christ,"  I  ask.  How  is  this  to  be  done,  if 
not  by  putting  upon  them  the  badge  of  dis- 
cipleship,  the  token  of  recognition  as  believ- 
ers, which  is  the  only  rite  adapted  to  their 
condition  in  life — Christian  baptism? 

I  find  in  them  all  that  baptism  means,  all 
its  spiritual  import  implies;  and  I  find  no 
principle  involved  in  baptism  that  renders  it 
inapplicable  to  them.  They  are  in  the  king- 
dom, in  Christ,  in  his  body,  the  Church ; 
they  are  in  a  gracious  state  of  acceptance, 
and  are  therefore  fit  for  the  ordinance.  And 
the  ordinance  consists  of  dedication  to  God, 
a  covenant  relation  to  God,  and  the  sign  of 
the   inward   grace.      Infants,    under    the    Old 


36  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Testament,  were  accounted  capable  of  this, 
and  entitled  to  it ;  for  tli^y  were  placed  in  the 
covenant,  were  dedicated  to  God,  and  received 
the  outward  rite  which  was  the  token  of  God's 
covenant;  and  all  this  by  direct  command  of 
God.  We  are  then  brought  face  to  face  with 
parental  obligation,  as  well  as  with  the  duty 
of  the  Church,  with  reference  to  the  little 
children.  If  parents  were  required  under  the 
Old  Testament  to  dedicate  their  offspring  to 
God,  and  if  the  change  of  dispensation  en- 
larged the  privileges  of  the  pious,  but  did 
not  lower  the  standard  of  moral  obligation,  or 
excuse  from  any  social  duty,  there  is  nothing 
more  reasonable  than  to  expect  in  the  Church 
under  the  Gospel  some  provision  for  the  for- 
mal consecration  of  the  children,  and  their 
enrollment  in  covenant  bonds  with  all  that 
make  up  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  if  that 
provision  is  not  found  in  connection  with  the 
unrestricted  commission  to  disciple  the  na- 
tions, baptizing  them,  it  does  not  exist,  and 
one  of  the  most  precious  privileges  and  sol- 
emn duties  belonging  to  parents  under  the 
Old  Testament  is  strangely  eliminated  from 
the  New  Testament.      I  can  not  believe  this 


SPIRITUAL  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  37 

has  been  done.  It  is  contrary  to  the  genius 
of  the  Gospel,  and  opposed  to  all  right  inter- 
pretations of  the  actions  of  Christ  toward 
childhood,  and  deprives  his  comprehensive 
utterances  in  regard  to  the  little  children,  and 
their  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  of 
their  plainest  meaning.  And  if  this  strange 
excision  of  the  children  has  taken  place,  it 
has  been  done  without  notice  or  intimation, 
and  without  the  assignment  of  any  reason,  as 
well  as  in  the  face  of  these  significant  sayings, 
which  rather  imply  the  extension  of  their 
privileges  than  their  deprivation  of  those  that 
belonged  to  them  under  the  former  dispen- 
sation. 


38  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


Discourse  IL 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT. 

"For  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children." 
Acts  ii,  39. 


I 


N  this  language  we  find  such  an  allusion 
to  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and  to  the 
children  of  those  in  the  covenant,  as  im- 
plies necessarily,  under  the  circumstances, 
the  proper  covenant  standing  of  the  little 
ones,  and  recognizes  their  right  to  baptism. 
The  word  children  sometimes  relates  to  pos- 
terity in  general,  without  regard  to  the  spe- 
cial condition  of  infancy;  but  here  there  is 
such  a  present  application  of  the  language  to 
the  state  of  things  in  existence  that  the  most 
natural  and  easy  interpretation  is  that  which 
includes  the  little  ones  of  the  household, 
with  the  parents,  as  heirs  of  the  promise. 

The  language  was  addressed  to  Jews,  who 
were  accustomed   to   look   upon   their  infant 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.      39 

children  as  belonging  to  the  covenant,  and 
were  familiar  with  infant  Church  membership 
and  infant  baptism — the  latter  as  practiced  in 
the  case  of  proselytes.  It  refers  to  the  prom- 
ise contained  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham, 
in  which  covenant  God  engages  to  be  the 
God  of  Abraham  and  his  seed,  meaninor  not 
only  his  descendants  in  general,  but  his  infant 
offspring  in  particular,  and  in  which  he  recog- 
nizes infant  Church  membership,  fixing  upon 
them  the  token  of  the  covenant.  The  words 
''your  children"  correspond  to  '*thy  seed" 
in  the  original  promise;  and  ''thy  seed"  is 
shown  to  include  infants  by  the  command  to 
circumcise  the  child  of  eight  days.  The  con- 
nection between  "thy  seed"  in  the  original 
promise,  and  the  command  to  circumcise  ev- 
ery man-child,  shows  that  God  intended  to 
recognize  the  infant  offspring  of  Abraham  as 
in  covenant  with  himself;  and  the  relation 
between  baptism  and  "your  children"  in  this 
passage  is  so  similar  to  that  between  "thy 
seed"  and  the  command  enjoining  circumcis- 
ion in  the  institution  of  the  covenant  that 
we  can  not  avoid  the  conclusion  that  God 
intended   both   "you   and   your   children"   to 


40  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

receive  the  same  token  of  recognition.  The 
language  of  Peter  must  be  explained  in  har- 
mony with  the  well-known  signification  of 
similar  language  in  the  covenant  to  which  he 
referred.  Then,  as  infant  offspring  were  un- 
questionably embraced  in  "the  promise"  as 
first  made  to  Abraham,  they  must  also  be 
included  in  this  application  of  "the  promise'* 
made  by  Peter.  The  expression  "thy  seed'* 
related  to  infants  when  the  promise  was  made ; 
and  the  words  of  Peter,  "your  children,"  can 
not,  by  any  fairness  of  interpretation,  be  made 
to  mean  any  thing  different.  Neither  one  of 
these  expressions  excludes  from  the  promise 
either  grown  posterity  or  infant  children. 

Some  have  claimed  that  the  "promise'* 
alluded  to  was  only  the  prophecy  of  Joel, 
which  was  so  remarkably  fulfilled  in  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Spirit;  but  that  prophecy  is  in 
another  place  distinctly  cited,  while  it  is  the 
invariable  custom  of  the  apostles  to  speak  of 
the  covenant  with  Abraham  as  "the  promise/* 
by  way  of  distinction.  In  the  following  chap- 
ter there  is  recorded  a  similar  discourse,  de- 
livered by  this  same  Peter  on  an  occasion  of 
similar  import,  in  which  he  distinctly  specifies 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.  41 

the  covenant  of  Abraham  as  containing  ''the 
promise"  which  he  quotes:  "Ye  are  the  chil- 
dren of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  covenant 
which  God  made  with  our  fathers,  saying 
unto  Abraham,  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the 
kindreds  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  This  is 
the  covenant  which  contains  the  promise  ''to 
you  and  to  your  children;"  and  I  propose  a 
careful  analysis  of  its  provisions  and  scope, 
intending  to  develop  from  its  spirituality  and 
permanency  an  argument  for  infant  baptism 
which  can  not  be  rejected  without  the  most 
flagrant  violation  of  the  soundest  principles 
of  Scriptural  exegesis. 

God's  method  of  saving  sinners  is  the 
same  in  all  ages.  He  never  adopted  but 
the  one  plan  of  redemption,  and  he  will 
never  exchange  that  for  another.  Through 
all  the  changes  of  the  outward  structure  of 
the  Church,  and  the  modifications  of  external 
ceremonials  that  have  marked  the  passing  of 
the  dispensations,  that  one  plan  has  been 
kept  in  view,  while  its  progressive  develop- 
ment moved  steadily  onward  to  its  culmi- 
nation in  the  coming  and  official  work  of 
the  Messiah,  "the  seed  of  the  woman"  and 


42  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  ^^seed  of  Abraham."  This  plan  was 
darkly  shadowed  to  Adam,  to  Enoch,  and 
to  Noah,  and  more  clearly  intimated  to 
Abraham.  With  this  patriarch,  God  estab-- 
lished  in  visible  form  his  covenant,  which 
was  to  be  the  charter  of  the  Church  to  the 
end  of  time,  and  in  which  he  honored  his 
servant  by  constituting  him  the  father  of 
many  nations,  and  making  him  the  reposi- 
tory of  promises  to  be  fulfilled  only  through 
the  Messiah  and  under  his  spiritual  dominion. 
This  covenant  was  therefore  distinguished  as 
the  ''covenant  of  promise."  It  contained  a 
variety  of  stipulations,  which  were  not  all  re- 
vealed at  once,  but  were  declared  to  Abra- 
ham from  time  to  time,  perhaps  as  his 
faith  was  able  to  receive  and  appreciate  the 
unfolding  of  the  divine  purpose.  These  rev- 
elations, which  entered  into  the  covenant 
with  Abraham,  extended  through  a  series  of 
years,  so  that  we  must  collate  a  number 
of  passages  in  order  to  gain  a  comprehensive 
view  of  its  far-reaching  provisions.  I  there- 
fore present  the  following: 

*'Now   the    Lord    said    unto   Abram,    Get 
thee  out  of  thy  country,  and  from  thy  kin- 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.      43 

dred,  and  from  thy  father's  house,  unto  a 
land  that  I  will  show  thee;  and  I  will  make 
thee  a  great  nation,  and  I  will  bless  thee  and 
make  thy  name  great;  and  thou  shalt  be  a 
blessing;  and  I  will  bless  them  that  bless 
thee,  and  curse  him  that  curseth  thee;  and  in 
thee  shall  all  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed." 
(Genesis  xii,  1-3.)  ''And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Abram,  after  that  Lot  was  separated  from 
him:  Lift  up  now  thine  eyes,  and  look 
from  the  place  where  thou  art,  northward 
and  southward,  and  eastward  and  westward; 
for  all  the  land  which  thou  seest,  to  thee  will 
I  give  it,  and  to  thy  seed  forever.  And  I 
will  make  thy  seed  as  the  dust  of  the  earth; 
so  that  if  a  man  can  number  the  dust  of  the 
earth,  then  shall  thy  seed  also  be  numbered." 
(Genesis  xiii,  14-16.)  I  would  also  refer  to 
the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Genesis,  without  read- 
ing it  here.  It  contains  a  reiteration  of  the 
promise  of  a  numerous  seed,  an  account  of 
Abram's  justification,  together  with  a  specific 
declaration  respecting  the  Egyptian  bond- 
age and  deliverance.  We  next  come  to  the 
fuller  revelation  and  more  formal  establish- 
ment   of   this    covenant,    in   the    seventeenth 


44  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

chapter  of  Genesis:  "And  when  Abram  was 
ninety  years  old  and  nine,  the*  Lord  appeared 
to  Abram,  and  said  unto  him,  I  am  the  Al- 
mighty God;  w^alk  before  me,  and  be  thou 
perfect.  And  I  will  make  my  covenant  be- 
tween me  and  thee,  and  will  multiply  thee 
exceedingly.  And  Abram  fell  on  his  face; 
and  God  talked  with  him,  saying,  As  for  me, 
behold,  my  covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou 
shalt  be  a  father  of  many  nations.  Neither 
shall  thy  name  any  more  be  called  Abram; 
but  thy  name  shall  be  Abraham;  for  a  father 
of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee.  And  I 
will  make  thee  exceeding  fruitful,  and  I  will 
make  nations  of  thee ;  and  kings  shall  come 
out  of  thee.  And  I  will  establish  my  cove- 
nant between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after 
thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting 
covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy 
seed  after  thee.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee, 
and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein 
thou  art  a  stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan, 
for  an  everlasting  possession;  and  J  will  be 
their  God.  And  God  said  unto  Abraham, 
Thou  shalt  keep  my  covenant  therefore,  thou 
and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations. 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.  45 

This  is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep  be- 
tween me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee. 
Every  man-child  among  you  shall  be  circum- 
cised. And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of 
your  foreskin;  and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the 
covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.  And  he  that  is 
eight  days  old  shall  be  circumcised  among  you, 
every  man-child  in  your  generations,  he  that 
is  born  in  the  house,  or  bought  with  money  of 
any  stranger,  which  is  not  -of  thy  seed.  He 
that  is  born  in  thy  house,  and  he  that  is 
bought  with  thy  money,  must  needs  be  cir- 
cumcised; and  my  covenant  shall  be  in  your 
flesh  for  an  everlasting  covenant.  And  the 
uncircumcised  man-child,  whose  flesh  of  his 
foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be 
cut  off  from  his  people ;  he  hath  broken  my 
covenant."     (Genesis  xvii,  1-14.) 

Then,  after  the  trial  of  Abraham's  faith, 
as  recorded  in  the  twenty-second  chapter,  we 
find  this  same  covenant  renewed,  in  the  fol- 
lowing words:  *'And  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
called  unto  Abraham  out  of  heaven  the  sec- 
ond time,  and  said.  By  myself  have  I  sworn, 
saith  the  Lord,  for  because  thou  hast  done 
this   thing,    and   hast   not   withheld   thy  son, 


4.6  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

thine  only  son;  that  in  blessing  I  will  bless 
thee,  and  in  multiplying  I  will  multiply  thy 
seed  as  the  stars  of  the  heaven,  and  as  the 
sand  which  is  upon  the  sea-shore ;  and  thy  seed 
shall  possess  the  gate  of  his  enemies;  and  in 
thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be 
blessed;  because  thou  hast  obeyed  my  voice. " 
(Genesis  xxii,  15-18.)  This  same  covenant 
was  renewed  with  Isaac,  Genesis  xxvi,  3-4; 
and  also  with  Jacob,  Genesis  xxviii,  10-15. 

There  are  three  points  to  which  we  must 
direct  our  attention,  in  order  to  understand 
the  provisions  of  this  covenant,  and  to  see  its 
bearing  on  the  subject  before  us,  namely : 
I.  Its  oneness,  as  distinguished  from  all  other 
covenants.  2.  It.T  twofold  character,  or  its 
literal  and  spiritual  import,  as  related  to  the 
literal  and  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham.  3;  The 
perpetuity  and  development  of  its  spiritual 
part  under  the  Gospel  dispensation. 

The  Jirst  point  is,  God  made  but  one  cove- 
nant with  Abraham.  That  one  covenant 
contained  several  promises,  as  any  covenant 
may  contain  numerous  stipulations,  but  each 
promise  was  not  a  distinct  covenant.  If  the 
several  distinct   promises  are  to  be  taken  as 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.  47 

SO  many  covenants,  then  were  there  several 
distinct  covenants  made  with  Abraham  which 
have  no  sign  or  token,  and  which  were  never 
ratified  in  covenant  form.  The  Scriptures 
speak  famiHarly  of  the  covenant  Avith  Abra- 
ham, as  distinct  from  all  other  covenants ;  but 
they  never  speak  in  the  plural,  as  if  there 
were  more  than  one;  nor  do  they  specify  one 
so  as  to  imply  that  there  were  others.  True, 
the  sacred  writers  have  spoken,  in  a  few  in- 
stances, of  *'the  covenants,"  and  of  **the  two 
covenants;"  but  this  language  has  reference 
to  the  covenant  made  with  Moses,  in  connec- 
tion with  that  with  Abraham.  They  never 
speak  of  two  covenants  with  Abraham. 

That  the  covenant  with  Abraham  and  that 
made  with  Moses  are  not  the  same,  is  evident 
from  several  considerations: 

I.  They  were  instituted  at  different  times. 
This  fact  would  not  of  itself  prove  the  point 
in  hand,  since  the  same  covenant  was  estab- 
lished at  one  time  with  Abraham,  was  re- 
newed and  confirmed  to  him  at  different 
times,  and  was  subsequently  renewed  and 
established  with  Isaac  and  Jacob;  yet  we  find 
the    difference    in   the  dates  of  the  two   cov- 


48  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

enants  mentioned  by  the  apostle  Paul,  as 
something  of  importance,  when  he  was  show- 
ing; the  difference  between  the  covenant  with 
Abraham  and  the  ceremonial  law ;  so  that  the 
difference  in  dates,  in  connection  with  other 
facts,  proves  a  real  difference  in  the  identity 
of  the  covenants.  One  was  given  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  before  the  other;  hence 
they  are  not  identical.  If  the  covenant  with 
Moses  were  the  same  that  had  been  previ- 
ously made  with  Abraham,  the  date  of  its 
establishment  with  Moses  would  not  have 
been  the  date  of  its  origin;  but  the  Scrip- 
tures speak  of  the  Mosaic  covenant,  not  as 
the  renewal  of  another  covenant  dating  back 
to  the  days  of  Abraham,  but  as  having  its 
origin  in  the  day  when  God  took  the  children 
of  Israel  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt.  (See  Jeremiah  xxxi,  32,  and 
Hebrews  viii,  9.) 

2.  These  covenants  are  distinguished  by 
different  names.  That  with  Moses  is  called 
*'the  law,"  while  that  with  Abraham  is  de- 
nominated ''the  promise."  This  is  particu- 
larly the  case  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
where  the  difference  in  the  nature  of  the  two 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.  49 

covenants  is  discussed,  and  the  apostle  uses 
this  distinction  in  justification  of  his  course 
in  offering  the  '^ blessing  of  Abraham"  to  the 
Gentiles,  through  Jesus  Christ.  In  explaining 
''the  promise,"  so  as  to  apply  to  Gentiles, 
who  by  accepting  the  Gospel  are  constituted 
''the  seed  of  Abraham,"  he  anticipated  the 
objection  the  Jew  might  make,  to  the  effect 
that  this  extension  of  privilege  under  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  would  array  the  law  in 
antagonism  with  the  promise,  since  the  law, 
or  the  covenant  with  Moses,  belonged  only 
^o  the  Jews ;  and  in  recognition  of  this  objec- 
tion, and  for  the  purpose  of  answering  it,  he 
asked,  '*Is  the  law  against  the  promise?" 
He  showed  that  it  was  not,  and  that  it  could 
not  restrict  the  promise  from  reaching  out 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  law,  even  unto  all 
the  seed. 

3.  The  Mosaic  covenant  was  peculiar  to 
the  Jewish  nation,  while  the  Abrahamic  cov- 
enant was  designed  for  ''all  nations" — for 
"all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth."  The  pre- 
cepts, promises,  and  particularly  the  ritualistic 
services  of  the  Mosaic  covenant,  look  to  the 
distinct  nationality  of  the  Israelites;  but  the 
4 


50  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

wording  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  shows 
its  adaptation  to  all  the  families  of  the  earth. 
It  was  clearly  intended  to  include  the  Gen- 
tiles in  its  provisions,  and  to  bring  all  nations 
upon  an  equality  as  respects  their  rights  to 
the  blessings  of  the  Messiah  and  the  priv- 
ileges of  the  Church.  Hence,  in  speaking 
of  its  full  development  in  the  form  of  the 
Gospel  institution,  the  apostle  says,  ''Christ 
hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on 
the  Gentiles." 

4.  That  the  Mosaic  and  Abrahamic  cov- 
enants are  not  identical,  is  seen  in  the  fact 
that  one  was  "added"  to  the  other,  for  a 
limited  time  and  a  definite  purpose.  The 
apostle,  having  shown  that  the  law,  which  is 
the  covenant  with  Moses,  could  not  give 
life — could  not  pardon,  justify,  or  save  the 
sinner — anticipated  the  objection  that  would 
naturally  arise,  and  himself  asked  the  ques- 
tion, ** Wherefore,  then,  serveth  the  law?'* 
If  it  could  not  justify,  of  what  use  was  it? 
Why  was  it  given?  He  answers,  *'It  was 
added  because  of  transgressions,  till  the  seed 
should  come  to  whom  the  promise  was  made. 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.      5 1 

and  was  ordained  by  angels  in  the  hand  of  a 
mediator."  (Galatians  iii,  19.)  The  ''prom- 
ise" was  made  to  Abraham,  in  the  "ever- 
lasting covenant,"  that  in  his  "seed"  all  the 
nations  should  be  blessed.  That  "seed"  was 
Christ ;  and  the  covenant  could  not  be  ful- 
filled, and  must  not  be  repealed,  until  Christ 
came,  and  all  the  nations  received  the  bless- 
ing of  Abraham  through  him.  Hence,  its 
fulfillment  and  development  belong  to  the 
Gospel  period.  But  before  Christ  came  the 
Israelites  were  strongly  inclined  to  wicked- 
ness, especially  to  idolatry  and  unbelief;  and 
in  order  to  restrain  their  evil  passions,  and  to 
prepare  them  for  the  advent  of  the  Messiah, 
the  promised  seed,  "the  law,"  with  its  pro- 
hibitions and  curse,  and  with  its  burdensome 
rites,  was  "added"  to  the  Abrahamic  cov- 
enant with  its  "promise,"  as  the  most  effect- 
ual means  of  promoting  piety  and  the  fear  of 
the  Lord  among  a  people  so  refractory. 

5.  The  Mosaic  covenant  was  blended  with 
one  part  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant;  that  is 
to  say,  that  the  literal  part  of  the  covenant 
with  Abraham  was  taken  up  into  the  Mosaic, 
so  that  all  that  related  to  the  literal  seed  of 


52  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Abraham,  and  the  temporal  promises,  and 
the  inheritance  in  the  literal  Canaan,  was 
embraced  in  the  covenant  with  Moses,  and 
fulfilled  in  the  establishment  of  Israel  in  the 
land  of  promise.  Thus  there  was  in  fact  a 
real  union  of  these  covenants,  without  antag- 
onism, in  the  dispensation  of  the  law;  show- 
ing that  the  law  did  not  disannul  the  promise, 
nor  displace,  nor  repeal,  any  part  of  the  cov- 
enant with  Abraham. 

6.  The  Mosaic  covenant  was  abolished, 
and  the  Abrahamic  covenant  established,  by 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  This  is  clear, 
from  many  Scriptures.  The  law  was  added 
for  a  limited  time,  and  must  needs  expire,  by 
limitation,  with  the  appearance  of  Christ,  the 
promised  seed.  ''The  law  was  added  because 
of  transgressions,  till  the  seed  should  come, 
to  whom  the  promise  was  made."  The 
Abrahamic  covenant  existed  for  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years  without  the  law,  and  the  ad- 
dition of  the  law  made  no  change  in  the  cov- 
enant, and  had  no  effect  upon  it  except  to 
fulfill  its  temporal  aspects,  so  that  when  the 
work  for  which  the  law  was  added  was  done, 
and  the   time   for    its    expiration    arrived,   it 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.  53 

gave  way  for  the  maturity  of  the  promise, 
and  the  development  of  the  covenant  in  its 
spiritual  part,  without  affecting  the  integrity 
of  the  covenant  in  the  least.  It  can  not, 
therefore,  be  that  the  covenants  with  Moses 
and  Abraham  were  the  same,  or  that  the  ex- 
piration of  the  law,  by  limitation,  could 
repeal,  invalidate,  or  disannul  the  promise, 
which  looked  forward  to  Christ,  ''the  prom- 
ised seed,"  and  the  dispensation  of  spiritual 
blessings  through  him  to  *'all  nations."  The 
fact  that  the  Mosaic  covenant  expired,  by 
limitation,  at  the  death  of  Christ,  requires 
no  proof;  but  how  the  death  of  Christ  could 
operate  to  repeal  or  supersede  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  with  reference  to  its  spiritual  as- 
pects, is  something  which  the  opposers  of 
infant  baptism  have  never  been  able  to  show, 
although  they  have  spent  much  labor  in  the 
attempt.  Paul  taught  plainly  that  Christ  did 
not  repeal  or  supersede  this  covenant,  but 
that  he  confirmed  it.  "Now  I  say  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  a  minister  of  circumcision  for  the 
truth  of  God,  to  confirm  the  promise  made 
unto  the  fathers,  and  that  the  Gentiles  might 
glorify   God   for  his  mercy,"  etc.      (Romans 


54  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

XV,  8,  9.)  The  ''promise  made  unto  the  fa- 
thers," in  which  the  Gentiles  were  interested, 
and  which  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  minister  of 
circumcision,  confirmed,  was  the  promise  of 
blessing  in  the  seed  of  Abraham  for  all  na- 
tions. This  part  of  the  covenant  existed  only 
in  promise,  although  it  was  a  covenant  prom- 
ise, ratified  by  the  sign  of  circumcision,  until 
Christ  came,  when  the  fleshly  part  of  the 
covenant,  being  fulfilled,  passed  away,  and 
the  spiritual  part  came  forward  in  full  devel- 
opment, in  the  form  of  the  Gospel  Church, 
including  all  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham, 
and  bestowing  upon  them  the  appointed 
token,  Avhich  is  not  circumcision,  but  bap- 
tism. This  spiritual  covenant  is  now  con- 
firmed of  God  in  Christ,  and  as  the  institution 
of  the  law  could  not  disannul  the  promise,  so 
neither  could  the  expiration  of  the  law  inval- 
idate any  of  the  covenanted  rights  of  the 
spiritual  seed.  The  Abrahamic  covenant, 
therefore,  stands  forth  "the  everlasting  cov- 
enant," the  covenant  of  grace,  the  charter  of 
the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  down  to  the  end 
of  time.  The  old  anti-Pedobaptist  notion 
was,    that    the    covenant    of    Abraham    was 


THE  ABRAHAillC  COVEXAJ^fT.  :  _: 

SO  blended  with  that  of  Moses  as  to  be  one 
with  it,  and  therefore  that  it  was  confiined 
to  the  literal  descendants  :f  A':  :=!.-"  ^ri 
limited  to  temporal  pr :  ~  .  - 1 5  l:  „  ;^  ?_  -  - 1 
away  with  the  dispensation  of  Moses;  and 
that,  consequently,  :  :  :  "^  :ndpiivil^es 
secured  to  adults  or       '? .  .  ter  that  cov- 

enant, passed  away  .:/.  i..^  ^:.  : :'  ceremo- 
nies and  the  ushering  in  of  the  kingdom  of 
Christ.  The  incorrectness  of  this  view  is  now 
apparent.  It  is  utterly  insufficient  to  account 
for  the  terms  of  the  covenant,  or  the  lan- 
guage of  the  New  Testament  writers  re^>ect- 
ing  it.  It  involves  absurdities  and  contradic- 
tions that  brand  it  as  error,  while  the  proofs 
abound  that  this  covenant  was  spiritual  as 
well  as  temporal ;  that  it  was  distinct  from  the 
covenant  of  Moses,  and  grandly  survives  the 
abrogation  of  the  old  dispensation,  bearing  to 
all  nations  the  covenanted  mercies  of  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  has  always  been 
felt,  if  the  iVbrahamic  covenant  is^  spiritual, 
and  remains  in  force  under  the  Gospel  as  the 
charter  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  that, 
inasmuch  as  infants  were  included  in  that 
co\  enant,  and  received  the  token  of  recog- 


$6  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

nition  as  the  heirs  of  promise,  by  the  express 
command  of  God,  they  still  have  the  right  to 
the  same  recognition  by  the  appointed  token, 
under  the  dispensation  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  And  this  is  a  proposition  which  no 
learning  can  invalidate,  and  nothing  better 
than  quibbling  can  avoid.  If  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  is  in  force  to-day,  as  it  surely  is, 
unless  it  can  be  shown  to  have  been  repealed, 
there  is  no  power  on  earth  to  disprove  the 
right  of  our  infant  offspring  to  recognition  in 
the  Church  by  Christian  baptism. 

We  must  now  look  more  directly  at  the 
twofold  character  of  this  covenant,  and  par- 
ticularly at  its  spiritual  aspects.  The  po- 
sition has  been  assumed  that  God  made  no 
covenant  with  Abraham  in  the  proper  sense, 
but  only  promised  him  two  covenants,  one 
of  which  was  fully  developed,  signed,  sealed, 
and  delivered  at  Mt.  Sinai,  and  the  other  at 
Mt.  Zion.  This,  however,  does  not  quite 
accord  with  the  truth.  The  covenant  was 
made,  signed,  sealed,  and  delivered,  so  to 
speak,  in  Abraham's  day,  when  he  received 
the  sign  of  circumcision  as  the  token  of  the 
covenant   between    God    and   himself      That 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.      57 

one  covenant,  so  formally  delivered  and  es- 
tablished, contained  two  classes  of  promises, 
and  these  promises  were  afterward  confirmed 
and  developed  into  distinct  covenants — not  to 
supersede  the  Abrahamic,  but  in  pursuance 
of  it,  as  the  means  of  carrying  out  its  stipu- 
lations with  reference  to  the  literal  and  spirit- 
ual seed  and  the  temporal  and  spiritual  bless- 
ings. All  the  forms  the  Church  of  God 
afterward  assumed,  under  Moses  and  under 
Christ,  were  in  the  direct  line  of  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  covenant  with  Abraham.  The 
covenant  at  Sinai  was  ''added;"  but  its  de- 
velopment fulfilled  the  temporal  part  of  the 
covenant,  which  had  been  given  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years  before. 

The  apostle  Paul  illustrated  this  twofold 
idea  of  the  covenant  by  the  history  of  Abra- 
ham's family,  in  the  ''allegory,"  found  in 
Galatians  iv,  22-26:  "For  it  is  written  that 
Abraham  had  two  sons,  the  one  by  a  bond- 
maid, the  other  by  a  free  woman.  But  he 
who  was  of  the  bondwoman  was  born  after 
the  flesh;  but  he  of  the  free  woman  was  by 
promise.  Which  things  are  an  allegory:  for 
these   are   the    two  covenants ;   the  one  from 


58  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  mount  Sinai,  which  gendereth  to  bond- 
age, which  is  Agar.  For  this  Agar  is  mount 
Sinai  in  Arabia,  and  answereth  to  Jerusalem 
which  now  is,  and  is  in  bondage  with  her 
children.  But  Jerusalem  which  is  above  is 
free,  which  is  the  mother  of  us  all."  The 
word  ** covenants"  here  means  testaments,  as 
in  the  margin.  In  this  allegory  the  bond- 
woman and  her  son  are  the  types  of  the 
Mosaic  covenant,  which  took  up  into  its  con- 
stitution the  temporal  promises  to  Abraham; 
for  it  is  a  covenant  that  proceeds  from  Sinai, 
which  answereth  to  Jerusalem,  which  after- 
ward became  the  metropolis  of  the  nation 
organized  under  the  covenant  of  Sinai.  In 
other  words,  the  bondwoman  represents  the 
Church  under  the  law,  while  her  son,  born 
after  the  flesh,  represents  the  literal  descend- 
ants of  Abraham,  who  constituted  the  mem- 
bership of  the  Church  during  the  period  of 
its  bondage  to  the  law  of  ceremonies.  In 
like  manner,  the  free  woman  and  her  son 
are  types  of  the  spiritual  part  of  the  cov-' 
enant,  or  of  the  Church  under  the  Gospel, 
which  proceeded  from  Jerusalem,  as  the  law 
did  from  Sinai.     Jerusalem  which  is  above  is 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.  59 

the  spiritual  Zion,  the  Church  of  God  under 
the  Gospel,  of  which  the  free  woman,  Sarah, 
was  the  type,  whose  membership  are  ''chil- 
dren of  promise,"  not  literal  descendants  of 
Abraham,  but  his  spiritual  seed,  typified  by 
Isaac,  the  child  of  promise,  born  to  Abraham 
by  special  dispensation  of  God.  The  apostle 
applies  this  illustration  of  the  covenants  of 
Moses  and  Abraham  by  saying,  ''Now  we, 
brethren,  as  Isaac  was,  are  children  of  prom- 
ise." And  again,  "So  then,  brethren,  we 
are  not  children  of  the  bondwoman,  but  of 
the  free." 

A  careful  consideration  of  the  blessings 
promised  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  will 
show  the  correctness  of  the  view  taken  of 
the  oneness  of  that  covenant,  with  its  two 
branches,  the  temporal  and  the  spiritual. 

I.  The  first  item  in  the  covenant  is,  "I 
will  bless  thee,  and  make  thy  name  great, 
and  thou  shalt  be  a  blessing,"  etc.  This  im- 
plied worldly  prosperity  and  usefulness,  to- 
gether with  personal  acceptance  with  God 
and  a  high  state  of  spiritual  enjoyment.  In 
both  respects,  it  was  fulfilled  in  the  experi- 
ence of  the  patriarch. 


60  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

2.  The  covenant  secured  to  Abraham  a 
numerous  progeny,  of  whom  Messiah  should 
be  born;  and  also  a  spiritual  seed  as  numer- 
ous as  the  stars  of  heaven.  He  was  made 
the  **  father  of  many  nations^"  This  was 
literally  true,  but  its  proper  application  is  to 
the  spiritual  relationship.  Thus  Paul  under- 
stood it,  as  the  following  shows :  '  *  And  he 
received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had 
yet  being  uncircumcised:  that  he  might  be 
the  father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though 
they  be  not  circumcised;  that  righteousness 
might  be  imputed  unto  them  also :  and  the 
father  of  circumcision  to  them  who  are  not 
of  the  circumcision  only,  but  who  also  walk  in 
the  steps  of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham, 
which  he  had  being  yet  uncircumcised.  For 
the  promise  that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the 
world,  was  not  to  Abraham,  or  to  his  seed, 
through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith.  For  if  they  which  are  of  the 
law  be  heirs,  faith  is  made  void,  and  the 
promise  made  of  none  effect:  because  the  law 
worketh  WTath;  for  where  no  law  is,  there  is 
no   transgression.      Therefore    it   is   of   faith, 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.      6 1 

that  it  might  be  by  grace;  to  the  end  the 
the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed; 
not  to  that  only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to 
that  also  which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham; 
who  is  the  father  of  us  all,  as  it  is  written,  I 
have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations,  be- 
fore him  whom  he  believed,"  etc.  (Romans 
iv,  11-17.)  ''Know  ye,  therefore,  that  they 
which  are  of  faith;  the  same  are  the  children 
of  Abraham."  ''There  is  neither  Jew  nor 
Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there 
is  neither  male  nor  female ;  for  ye  are  all  one 
in  Christ  Jesus.  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then 
are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according 
to  the  promise."  (Galatians  iii,  6-29.)  These 
passages  fix  the  sense  of  the  promise  that 
Abraham  should  be  the  father  of  many  na- 
tions, and  show  that  it  looked  forward  to 
Gospel  times,  and  contemplated  a  spiritual 
seed. 

3.  The  covenant  secured  to  his  descend- 
ants the  land  of  Canaan  for  an  inheritance 
and  possession.  This  promise  was  fulfilled 
after  the  bondage  in  Egypt  and  the  sojourn 
in  the  wilderness ;  but  even  this  promise  of 
the  literal   Canaan,  though  belonging  to  the 


62  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

temporal  part  of  the  covenant  had  within  it 
a  high  spiritual  import.  The  inheritance  in 
Canaan  was  a  type  and  pledge  of  the  inherit- 
ance in  heaven.  The  author  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  so  interpreted  it.  When  he 
would  impress  the  reader  with  the  danger  of 
apostasy,  he  pointed  to  the  example  of  their 
fathers,  who  failed  through  unbelief  of  en- 
tering into  the  rest  of  Canaan,  and  thereby 
urged  fidelity,  lest  they  should  fail  of  the 
heavenly  rest.  Of  the  ancient  worthies,  in- 
cluding Abraham,  we  have  this  record: 
*' These  all  died  in  faith,  not  having  re- 
ceived the  promises,  but  having  seen  them 
afar  off,  and  were  persuaded  of  them,  and 
embraced  them,  and  confessed  that  they  were 
pilgrims  and  strangers  on  the  earth.  For 
they  that  say  such  things  declare  plainly  that 
they  seek  a  country.  And,  truly,  if  they  had 
been  mindful  of  that  country  from  whence 
they  came  out,  they  might  have  had  oppor- 
tunity to  have  returned.  But  now  they  de- 
sire a  better  country,  that  is,  an  heavenly: 
wherefore  God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  called 
their  God:  for  he  hath  prepared  for  them 
a  city."     (Hebrews  xi,    13-16.)     And  if  any 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.  63 

doubt  that  Abraham  understood  the  promise 
in  the  covenant  to  include  the  heavenly  coun- 
try, I  refer  them  to  the  words  of  this  chapter 
a  few  verses  above  the  ones  read:  "By  faith 
he  sojourned  in  the  land  of  promise,  as  in  a 
strange  country,  dwelling  in  tabernacles  with 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  the  heirs  with  him  of  the 
same  promise:  for  he  looked  for  a  city  which 
hath  foundations,  whose  builder  and  maker  is 
God."  (Hebrews  xi,  9,  10.)  Abraham  him- 
self, it  will  be  seen,  regarded  the  "land  of 
promise"  as  a  type  of  the  "better  country," 
in  which  God  had  prepared  for  him  a  city 
with  foundations, 

4.  This  covenant  contained  the  promise 
of  the  redemption  of  the  world  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "And  in  thy  seed  shall 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed." 
That  "seed"  was  Christ.  Through  him  the 
blessing  of  Abraham  comes  on  the  Gentiles. 
To  the  fulfillment  of  this  promise,  which  was 
the  crowning  glory  of  all  God's  revelations, 
the  entire  covenant  constantly  looked.  This 
was  its  grand  design,  and  its  every  part  was 
arranged  with  reference  to  this  result.  The 
"blessing"  promised  to  the  nations  through 


64  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Christ  was  primarily  the  gift  of  the  Holy- 
Ghost.  ^^  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every 
one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  for  the  promise 
is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all 
that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  shall  call."  The  apostles  every-where 
appealed  to  the  covenant  with  Abraham  as 
authority  for  offering  spiritual  blessings  to  the 
people.  Surely,  then,  that  covenant  was  the 
Gospel  covenant.  Strange  that  any  should 
deny  it!  Paul  says:  "Christ  hath  redeemed 
us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a 
curse  for  us,  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham 
might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus 
Christ,  that  we  might  receive  the  promise  of 
the  Spirit  through  faith."  To  "receive  the 
promise  of  the  Spirit"  is  to  receive  the  Spirit 
promised  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  This 
is  the  "blessing  of  Abraham" — the  bless- 
ing promised  him,  and,  through  his  seed, 
to  all  nations — the  very  blessing  that  comes 
on  the  Gentiles  through  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  "And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that 
God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith, 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.      6$ 

preached  before  the  Gospel  unto  Abraham, 
saying,  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed. 
So  then  they  which  be  of  faith  are  blessed 
with  faithful  Abraham."  When  the  nations 
receive  the  Gospel  and  its  blessings,  they  are 
blessed  with  faithful  Abraham.  They  receive 
the  Holy  Spirit  promised,  which  is  the  full- 
ness of  blessing.  Thus  all  nations  are  blessed 
through  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  because 
the  Gospel  brings  to  every  soul  this  promise 
of  the  Spirit  through  faith.  The  reception  of 
the  Gospel,  with  its  gift  of  the  Spirit,  consti- 
tutes believing  Gentiles  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham, and  heirs  according  to  the  promise.  It 
is  therefore  as  clear  as  the  light  that  the  cov- 
enant with  Abraham  is  the  Gospel  covenant. 
We  now  see  that  the  repeal  or  abrogation 
of  the  Mosaic  covenant,  or  its  passing  away 
by  expiration  of  the  time  for  which  it  Avas 
made,  did*  not  touch  the  integrity  and  bind- 
ing force  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  This 
is  an  important  point;  for  opposers  of  infant 
baptism  make  their  strongest  argument  on  the 
passing  away  of  the  ''old  covenant"  and  the 
establishment  of  "the  new  covenant."  They 
quote  with  great  confidence  the  prophecy 
5 


66  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

of  Jeremiah,  and  the  quotation  and  applica- 
tion of  that  prophecy  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  as  if  the  abrogation  of  the  **old 
covenant"  repealed  all  the  rights  conferred 
on  the  little  children  in  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant. The  radical  error  of  anti-pedobaptists 
on  this  point  is  in  confounding  the  ''old  cov- 
enant," which  ''waxed  old,"  with  the  Abra- 
hamic covenant,  which  never  did  "wax  old." 
The  covenant  which  "waxed  old"  was  that 
with  Moses,  not  that  with  Abraham.  Jere- 
miah says:  "Behold,  the  days  come,  saith 
the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant 
with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house 
of  Judah:  7tot  accordhig  to  the  covenant  that  I 
made  with  their  fatJiers,  ift  the  day  that  I  took 
them  by  the  hand  to  bring  them  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt;  which  my  covenant  they  brake, 
although  I  was  an  husband  unto  them,  saith 
the  Lord:  but  this  shall  be  the  covenant  that 
I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel;  After 
those  days,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  law 
in  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their 
hearts;  and  will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall 
be  my  people."  (Jeremiah  xxxi,  31-33.) 
The    covenant    with    Abraham    was    not    the 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT.  6'J 

one  that  was  made  in  the  day  that  God  took 
the  IsraeHtes  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  out 
of  Egypt;  jior  was  its  promise  of  a  spiritual 
seed  and  spiritual  blessings  made  any  part  of 
the  covenant  that  *' waxed  old"  and  vanished 
away.  On  the  contrary,  every  marked  fea- 
ture of  the  **new  covenant"  corresponds  with 
that  which  was  spiritual  in  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  which,  as  we  have  seen  so  plainly, 
was  the  Gospel  covenant.  That  which  is  spir- 
itual never  "waxes  old,"  although  it  ante- 
dates the  fleshly  covenant  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years.  It  is  as  new  to-day  as  it  was 
the  night  when  Abraham  first  lifted  his  eyes 
to-  the  stars  of  heaven  to  be  impressed  with 
the  countless  multitude  of  his  spiritual  seed. 
We  have  now  seen  that  the  covenant  with 
Abraham,  which  embraced  the  little  children, 
and  required  their  dedication  to  God  and  the 
bestowment  upon  them  of  the  token  of  the 
covenant,  was  one  in  fact,  while  it  branched 
out  into  two  parts,  the  literal  and  the  spir- 
itual; that  it  contemplated  a  literal  and  a 
spiritual  seed;  that  it  contained  promises  of 
temporal  and  spiritual  blessings;  that  it  was 
adapted   to  the  condition  and  wants  of  Jews 


68  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

and  Gentiles;  that  neither  the  institution  nor 
the  dissolution  of  the  ceremonial  law,  under 
the  covenant  with  Moses,  affected  its  integrity 
as  a  covenant;  and  that,  in  its  full  develop- 
ment, under  the  promised  seed,  it  belongs  to 
the  Gospel  dispensation,  and  is,  therefore, 
the  charter  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ 
through  all  the  ages.  Who,  then,  with  these 
points  before  him,  that  entertains  high  regard 
for  the  Word  of  God,  and  respects  rigid  ad- 
herence to  right  rules  of  interpretation,  can 
doubt  that  the  covenant  Christians  are  under 
to-day  is  the  one  that  God  made  with  Abra- 
ham, when  he  made  him  the  father  of  all 
that  believe?  That  was  emphatically  the 
covenant  of  redemption,  ''the  everlasting 
covenant,"  the  only  covenant  containing  the 
promise  of  salvation  through  the  Messiah. 
In  its  literal  aspects,  it  related  to  the  Jews, 
and  has  been  fulfilled.  Its  literal  part  was 
the  foundation  of  the  Mosaic  economy.  This 
part  of  it  was  temporary,  and  blended  with 
the  covenant  of  Sinai,  and  passed  away  with 
the  dispensation  that  constituted  its  full  de- 
velopment. But  the  spiritual  part,  which  was 
the  basis,  the  life,  the  soul,  of  the  covenant, 


THE  ABRAHAMIt  COVENANT.  69 

the  Gospel  in  embryo,  remains  unimpaired. 
As  the  temporal  part  was  taken  up  into  the 
Mosaic  economy,  and  fulfilled,  so  this  is  un- 
folded and  fulfilled  in  the  Gospel  economy. 

Here  we  have  firm  footing;  but  the  stub- 
bornness of  the  opposition  renders  it  impor- 
tant to  guard  the  subject.  When  we  affirm 
that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  the  Gospel 
covenant,  we  do  not  mean  that  the  Gospel, 
in  all  its  fullness  of  light  and  privilege,  be- 
longed to  Abraham  and  his  descendants.  Not 
by  any  means.  Nor  do  we  mean  that  any  of 
the  civil  rights  and  privileges  that  pertained 
to  the  literal  aspect  of  the  covenant  pass 
over  to  the  Church  of  the  spiritual  seed. 
This  has  all  been  settled.  But  we  do  mean 
that  the  spiritual  part  of  that  same  covenant 
had  direct  reference  to  the  Gospel  day,  and 
that  all  the  promises  of  spiritual  blessings  be- 
long to  all  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham. 
That  spiritual  seed  consists  of  all  God's  cov- 
enanted people — of  all  that  are  Christ's — who 
constitute  the  Church,  or  body  of  Christ. 
'*And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abra- 
ham's seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  prom- 
ise."   Then  are  infants  included,  or  excluded? 


70  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

If  they  are  included,  their  right  to  the  token 
of  the  covenant  is  as  clear  as  the  midday  sun 
in  a  cloudless  sky.  But  if  they  are  excluded, 
I  ask  on  what  ground?  By  what  authority? 
The  covenant  is  the  same  that  God  put  them 
in  at  the  first  organization  of  his  covenanted 
people;  they  have  not  been  cut  off  by  unbe- 
lief; they  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Then,  are  they  not  Christ's?  I  demand  the 
law  for  cutting  them  off  from  the  privilege 
once  conferred  upon  them  in  this  covenant, 
a  privilege  which  they  could  not  forfeit 
for  themselves.  If  infants  are  Abraham's 
spiritual  seed,  they  are  in  the  covenant,  and 
have  a  right  to  recognition  by  baptism.  If 
they  are  Christ's,  they  are  Abraham's  seed; 
but  if  they  are  not  Christ's,  whose  are  they? 
How  are  they  saved?  How  came  they  in 
the  kingdom?  Is  their  salvation  by  the  death 
of  Christ,  or  not?  If  not,  why  did  Christ 
claim  them,  and  recognize  them  as  of  the 
kingdom,  and  as  believers?  But  if  they  are 
saved  by  Christ,  they  are  his;  they  are  in 
him — in  the  vine,  the  body,  the  kingdom, 
the  Church;  and  if  so,  the  New  Testament 
token   of  the  covenant  belongs  to  them,  as 


THE  ABRAIIAMIC  COVENANT.  7 1 

surely  as  the  Old  Testament  token  did  before 
the  coming  of  Christ.  Say  not  to  me  that 
they  can  not  sustain  covenant  relations;  the 
whole  history  of  God's  dealings  with  his  peo- 
ple proclaims  that  they  can.  Say  not  that 
they  may  not  be  dedicated  to  him  by  parental 
authority;  the' plainest  injunctions  of  parental 
obligation,  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the 
New,  point  clearly  to  such  dedication  as  right 
in  itself,  and  as  acceptable  to  God.  Say  not 
that  no  benefit  can  arise  from  such  dedica- 
tion ;  that  is  to  question  the  wisdom  of  God's 
appointments,  and  to  assume  knowledge  above 
the  records  of  inspiration. 

Perhaps  there  is  as  much  hesitation  at  this 
point  as  at  any  point  in  the  whole  contro- 
versy. Because  men  can  not  see  the  good 
that  comes  directly  to  the  child  by  baptizing 
it,  they  suppose  no  evil  can  result  from  neg- 
lecting it.  So  Abraham  might  have  reasoned 
in  regard  to  the  circumcision  of  the  child  of 
eight  days;  and  so  might  the  Jewish  parents 
have  reasoned  in  regard  to  presenting  their 
children  before  the  Lord  at  forty  days  old, 
and  making  an  offering  for  their  redemp- 
tion;  but  such  excuses  would  not  have  been 


72  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

accepted.  God  demanded  the  dedication  of 
the  children,  and  in  those  forms,  under  the 
Old  Testament;  and  parents  have  never  been 
excused  from  the  duty,  although  the  manner 
of  dedication  has  been  changed.  The  token 
of  the  covenant  is  still  applicable,  and  he  who 
refuses  it  should  be  sure  of  the  ground  be- 
neath his  feet;  for,  while  rites  and  forms  may- 
change,  principles  are  eternal,  and  the  prin- 
ciple of  infant  dedication  to  God  is  here  in- 
volved ;  and  as  the  duty  devolves  on  the 
parent,  the  benefit  largely  depends  upon  the 
parent's  fidelity;  and  if  the  performance  of 
so  solemn  a  duty  as  dedicating  his  child  to 
God,  in  recognition  of  covenant  obligations, 
has  no  influence  upon  the  heart  of  the  par- 
ent, and  no  tendency  to  intensify  his  feeling 
of  obligation  to  rear  the  child  for  God,  and 
does  not  serve  as  a  stimulus  to  claim  the 
divine  promises  in  behalf  of  his  offspring, 
then  my  own  conceptions  of  the  elements  of 
human  character,  and  of  the  nature  and  pur- 
poses of  religious  services,  are  utterly  at  fault. 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  73 


Discourse  III. 

THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

"There  is  one  body." — Eph.  iv,  4. 

THE  apostle  Paul  frequently  represented 
the  Church  as  a  body,  and  spoke  of  it 
particularly  as  the  body  of  Christ,  as'  distin- 
guished from  the  body  of  his  flesh.  It  in- 
cludes all  that  are  Christ's,  all  the  covenanted 
people  of  God,  all  the  subjects  of  his  spirit- 
ual kingdom. 

I  shall  therefore  make  an  argument  for 
infant  baptism,  drawn  from  the  substantial 
oneness  of  the  Church  of  God  through  all  the 
dispensations. 

This  is  an  important  matter,  and  deserves 
the  most  careful  consideration.  A  vast  deal 
of  absurd  prejudice  has  been  excited  at  this 
point;  and  many  honest  people  have  been 
misled  by  false  criticism,  and  have  become 
bewildered   in  the  mists  of  error,   until  they 


74  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

could  not  perceive  with  clearness  the  sublime 
truth  that  God  never  founded  but  one  Church 
on  the  earth,  and  that  Christ  never  redeemed 
but  one  Church  by  the  shedding  of  his  pre- 
cious blood. 

Nor  is  it  strange  that  the  idea  of  the  one- 
ness of  the  Church  should  be  perverted,  after 
being  admitted  on  the  testimony  of  the 
Scriptures.  We  do  not  mean  by  it  that  all 
worshipers  of  God,  who  become  members  of 
the  Church,  must  be  enrolled  under  one  ec- 
clesiastical rule  or  authority.  This  thought 
is  the  distorted  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  the 
Church  as  held  by  the  apostate  Church  of 
Rome.  Nor  do  we  understand  that  it  is 
requisite  that  all  shall  practice  the  ordinances 
of  the  Church  in  precisely  the  same  way. 
This  would  secure  uniformity,  if  it  were  prac- 
ticable; but  uniformity  is  not  unity.  The 
center  and  source  of  unity  is  Christ;  and  the 
vital  union  with  Christ  that  secures  salvation 
secures  the  unity  of  the  Church — the  oneness 
of  which  we  speak. 

The  word  ekklesia — church — is  from  the 
verb  ekkaleo.  This  verb  expresses  the  act  of 
calling  out^   collecting,    or  separating  a  class 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  75 

of  people  from  the  mass,  forming  thereby  an 
assembly,  or  congregation.  The  people  thus 
called  out,  or  separated,  are  the  Church — the 
ekklesia — because  they  are  separated  and  dis- 
tinguished as  a  peculiar  people.  God  had  a 
people  before  the  days  of  Abraham,  but  they 
were  not  called  out  or  formed  into  a  separate 
community.  They  were  not,  therefore,  a  vis- 
ible Church.  When  God  called  Abram  to 
separate  himself  from  his  home  and  kindred, 
the  formation  of  the  Church  began ;  and  when 
the  covenant  with  that  patriarch  was  estab- 
lished, and  himself  and  household  entered 
into  it,  the  first  organization  of  the  Church 
took  place.  Ever  since  then,  God  has  not 
only  had  a  people,  but  a  people  called  out 
and  separated  as  his  peculiar  treasure,  with 
ordinances  to  distinguish  them  from  the  world. 
These  ordinances  do  not  of  themselves  create 
any  new  relationship,  but  only  recognize  a  pre- 
viously existing  one.  That  previously  existing 
relationship  gives  the  right  to  the  ordinances; 
and  if  none  received  the  ordinances  except 
those  fully  entitled  to  them,  none  would  be 
recognized  as  members  of  the  visible  Church 
but  such  as  are  really  mem.bers  of  the  body 


'j6  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

of  Christ,  or  seeking  in  penitence  the  way  of 
salvation ;  and  if  all  received  the  token  of 
recognition  who  are  members  of  Christ's 
body  by  spiritual  union,  and  therefore  enti- 
tled to  it,  all  partakers  of  salvation  through 
Christ  would  receive  that  mark  of  distinction, 
and  thus  be  enrolled  with  the  people  of  God. 
In  that  event,  the  visible  Church  would  be  a 
true  manifestation  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Every  subject  of  that  kingdom,  whether  adult 
or  infant,  would  then,  by  outward  consecra- 
tion, be  given  to  the  Lord  in  covenant  bonds, 
and  wear  the  badge  of  membership  in  the 
family  of  God. 

When  the  Church  was  first  organized  in 
the  family  of  Abraham,  infants  were  ex- 
pressly included.  They  received  the  token 
of  the  covenant,  and  were  distinguished  as 
part  of  God's  chosen  people.  They  were 
certainly  capable  of  being  entered  as  parties 
to  God's  gracious  covenant,  for  God  com- 
manded that  it  should  be  done.  Their  spirit- 
ual relation  to  the  promised  Redeemer  secured 
their  justification  from  original  sin,  and  con- 
stituted them  fit  subjects  for  the  Church  of 
God.     It  seems  to  me  that  no  one  not  blinded 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.     'J'J 

by  prejudice  to  the  border  of  bigotry  can 
dispute  this  for  one  moment.  The  Church, 
in  which  infants  were  placed,  was  then  in  its 
infancy;  but  it  had  in  it  all  the  elements  of  a 
real  Church.  It  was  afterward  under  a  dis- 
pensation of  pupilage.  The  law  of  Moses 
was  its  ''schoolmaster."  During  the  period 
of  its  minority,  it  was  under  "tutors  and 
governors."  But  the  dispensation  of  the  law 
began  and  closed  without  destroying  the  life 
or  the  identity  of  the  pupil.  It  was  still  the 
Church,  advancing  toward  maturity.  No  act 
rescinding  the  act  ordaining  infant  member- 
ship in  the  Church  was  ever  passed.  No  act 
rescinding  the  original  charter  of  the  Church 
was  ever  passed ;  nor  did  God  ever  issue  an 
order  for  establishing  a  new  Church,  after  he 
made  covenant  with  Abraham.  The  Savior 
organized  no  new  Church.  The  apostles  or- 
ganized no  new  Church.  The  "new  cov- 
enant" was  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  un- 
folded, fulfilled,  and  confirmed  of  God  in 
Christ.  There  never  has  been  a  moment, 
since  Abraham  and  Isaac  were  circumcised, 
when  God  had  no  Church  on  the  earth ; 
neither   has   there  been  a  time  when  he  had 


78  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

two  Churches.  The  Church  itself  has  sur- 
vived all  the  changes  of  form  and  outward 
condition  that  have  marked  the  different  dis- 
pensations, as  well  as  all  the  calamities  and 
apostasies  that  have  characterized  its  history. 
The  form  of  worship  has  been  changed,  the 
rites  and  ceremonies  have  been  modified — in 
a  word,  the  whole  machinery  has  been  read- 
justed, as  it  must  needs  be,  to  meet  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Church  to  the  new  order  of  things 
growing  out  of  the  death  of  Christ,  the  expi- 
ration of  the  ceremonial  law%  the  cessation  of 
the  types,  the  institution  of  the  sacraments, 
and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  A  new  dis- 
pensation came,  and  a  new  token  of  the  cov- 
enant was  appointed,  but  the  Church  of  God 
retained  its  identity.  It  continued  to  be  the 
body  of  Christ,  the  kingdom  of  God,  the 
Church  which  he  purchased  with  his  own 
blood — the  only  Church  he  ever  had,  ever 
bought,  ever  redeemed  or  saved.  In  the 
days  of  Elijah,  when  there  was  a  great  apos- 
tasy, and  the  prophet  thought  the  Church  was 
destroyed,  and  that  he  himself  was  left  alone, 
God  assured  him  that  there  were  yet  seven 
thousand   who   had    not   bowed    the   knee   to 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  79 

Baal.  In  the  days  of  Christ  there  was  a  great 
apostasy.  The  great  body  of  the  Jews  re- 
jected the  Messiah,  and  were  cut  off,  excom- 
municated from  the  Church;  but  the  Church 
was  not  destroyed.  Even  then,  God  did  not 
cast  away  his  people.  There  was  a  remnant 
left,  "according  to  the  election  of  grace." 
On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  new  converts 
were  ''added"  to  the  Church.  They  were 
not  in  the  Church  simply  by  virtue  of  being 
Jews.  The  Church  was  in  the  nation,  but  it 
was  not  the  nation.  The  "congregation  of 
the  Lord"  was  distinct  from  the  common- 
wealth; although,  during  the  minority  of  the 
Church,  its  laws,  and  rites,  and  services  were 
much  interwoven  with  the  civil  institutions 
of  the  land.  So  when  the  kingdom  of  God 
was  taken  from  the  Jews,  they  were  still  a 
people,  and  are  to  this  day,  but  not  the 
people  of  God,  within  his  covenant,  and 
entitled  to  his  favor.  They  were  cut  off 
through  unbelief.  But  infants  belonged  to 
the  kingdom  of  God  still.  They  were  never 
excommunicated,  because  they  Avere  never 
guilty  of  unbelief.  Nothing  else  than  that 
could  unchurch  them. 


So  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

We  must  look  closely  as  we  proceed. 
What  do  we  mean  by  the  Church  member- 
ship of  infants?  If  infants  are  members  of 
the  Church  of  Christ,  it  will  hardly  be  denied 
that  they  may  be  baptized.  Infant  Church 
membership  and  infant  baptism  stand  or  fall 
together.  But  what  about  their  membership  ? 
God  originally  placed  them  in  the  covenant; 
but  in  what  sense  do  they  belong  to  the 
Church?  Mark,  I  am  not  speaking  of  the 
Church  in  the  lower  applications  of  the  term, 
as  to  the  house  of  worship,  or  the  congrega- 
tion convened;  nor  am  I  speaking  of  any  or 
all  the  ecclesiastical  denominations;  but  of 
the  Church  of  God,  which  embraces  all  his 
covenanted  people,  the  mystical  body  of 
Christ.  This  Church  is  but  another  name  for 
the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth.  All  who  be- 
long to  the  kingdom — that  is,  all  the  subjects 
of  salvation — belong  to  this  Church.  Nor  am 
I  speaking  of  belonging  to  the  Church  m 
form;  that  is,  in  the  sense  of  actual  recogni- 
tion by  the  visible  ordinance,  which  is  the 
badge  of  membership,  as  it  is  the  token  of 
the  covenant;  for  some  who  really  belong  to 
the  kingdom  may  never  be  recognized  by  any 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  8 1 

association  of  Christians,  while  others  may  be 
formally  recognized  who  have  no  right  to  such 
distinction,  by  reason  of  lacking  all  spiritual 
qualifications.  But  I  am  speaking  now  of 
belonging  to  the  Church  by  right.  Every 
subject  of  Christ's  kingdom  has  a  right  to  be 
recognized  as  a  member  of  Christ's  Church. 
And  this  right  does  not  depend  on  the  cere- 
mony that  acknowledges  it,  nor  does  it  grow 
out  of  any  earthly  or  fleshly  relationship.  It 
arises  solely  from  a  spiritual  relation  to  Christ. 
The  giving  of  the  ceremony  can  not  create 
the  right,  nor  can  the  withholding  of  the  cer- 
emony destroy  it.  If  any  subject  of  Christ's 
spiritual  dominion  is  refused  recognition,  this 
does  not  destroy  his  relation  to  Christ,  which 
is  the  foundation  of  all  spiritual  privileges; 
and  if  any  hypocritical  pretender  should  im- 
pose himself  upon  the  Church,  and  obtain 
recognition  as  a  member,  he  does  not  neces- 
sarily become  a  subject  of  the  kingdom.  In 
this  state  of  imperfection,  it  is  not  possible  to 
square  the  lines  of  the  visible  Church  with 
those  of  Christ's  kingdom;  but  if,  owing  to 
imperfect  administration,  any  who  ought  to 
be  recognized  as  members  fail  to  obtain  rec- 
6 


8j  christian  baptism. 

ognition,  the  right  will  remain  unimpaired, 
while  the  relation  subsists  in  which  it  is 
founded.  Hence,  all  who  are  in  the  visible 
Church  without  the  necessary  relation  to  the 
Savior  are  intruders;  and  all  who  are  in 
Christ,  in  his  spiritual  kingdom,  are  entitled 
to  recognition  by  the  Church,  in  the  appointed 
covenant  rite. 

The  Church  is  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures 
under  a  variety  of  figures,  as,  a  ''vine,"  a 
"kingdom,"  a  "building,"  a  "body;"  but, 
under  all  these  representations,  the  Church  is 
the  same.  The  "branches"  in  the  vine,  the 
"subjects"  in  the  kingdom,  the  "stones"  in 
the  building,  and  the  "members"  in  the 
body,  are  all  the  same.  All  who  are  in  the 
vine  are  in  the  kingdom,  in  the  building,  in 
the  body,  the  Church.  The  vine  is  the 
Church,  the  kingdom  is  the  Church,  the 
building  is  the  Church,  and  the  body  is  the 
Church.  Therefore,  to  be  in  the  vine,  or  in 
the  kingdom,  or  in  the  building,  or  the  body, 
is  to  be  in  the  Church,  by  right.  This,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  beyond  dispute;  and  yet  it 
is  equally  clear  that  all  who  are  entitled  to 
a   place   in   the   Church,   by  divine  right,  are 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH,  83 

entitled  to  recognition  by  Christian  baptism. 
In  a  former  discourse,  we  found  that  infants 
are  in  the  "kingdom,"  and  that  they  are  the 
models  of  fitness  for  that  relation;  it  there- 
fore follows  that  they  are  in  the  vine,  in  the 
building,  in  the  body,  the  Church. 

And  Christ  never  had  but  one  kingdom. 
The  manifestation  of  that  kingdom  was  not 
perfect  under  the  former  dispensation,  while 
the  Church  was  yet  under  ''tutors  and  gov- 
ernors;" but  it  did  exist,  and  in  the  eye  of 
God  its  lines  were  as  distinctly  traced  as  in 
later  times.  God  has  but  one  "building," 
which  is  made  up  of  "lively  stones,"  a  royal 
temple,  built  under  the  direction  of  the  Su- 
preme Architect,  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  rests 
on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  proph- 
ets, Jesus  Christ  himself  the  chief  corner-stone. 
Into  this  building  all  the  variety  of  material, 
gathered  throughout  the  nations  and  the  ages, 
is  fitly  framed  together,  making  an  holy  tem- 
ple, a  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit. 
Wrought  into  it  were  all  the  patriarchs  and 
prophets,  and  all  the  saints  and  worthies  of 
Old  Testament  times;  and  into  this  same 
building   are   wrought   apostles   and   martyrs, 


84  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

and  all  the  saved  under  the  Gospel.  It  is  the 
grand  spiritual  edifice  whose  cap-stone  will  be 
brought  with  shoutings  of  grace,  when  the 
last  sinner  saved  shall  find  his  place  in  the 
holy  temple  of  the  Lord.  And  Christ  has 
but  one  mystical  body.  The  ''body  of  his 
flesh"  is  always  distinguished  from  **his 
body,  the  Church."  ''There  is  one  body, 
and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in  one 
hope  of  your  calling."  Permit  a  longer  quo- 
tation. "For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath 
many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  that 
one  body,  being  many,  are  one  body;  so  also 
is  Christ.  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free;  and 
have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit. 
For  the  body  is  not  one  member,  but  many. 
If  the  foot  shall  say,  Because  I  am  not  the 
hand,  I  am  not  of  the  body;  is  it  therefore 
not  of  the  body?  And  if  the  ear  shall  say, 
Because  I  am  not  the  eye,  I  am  not  of  the 
body;  is  it  therefore  not  of  the  body?  If 
the  whole  body  were  an  eye,  where  were  the 
hearing?  If  the  whole  were  hearing,  where 
were   the  smelling?     But  now  hath   God  set 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  85 

the  members  every  one  of  them  in  the  body,  as 
it  hath  pleased  him.  And  if  they  were  all  one 
member,  where  were  the  body?  But  now  are 
they  many  members,  yet  but  one  body.  And 
the  eye  can  not  say  unto  the  hand,  I  have  no 
need  of  thee:  nor  again  the  head  to  the  feet, 
I  have  no  need  of  you.  Nay,  much  more 
those  members  of  the  body,  which  seem  to 
be  more  feeble,  are  necessary.  And  those 
members  of  the  body,  which  we  think  to  be 
less  honorable,  upon  these  we  bestow  more 
abundant  honor:  and  our  uncomely  parts 
have  more  abundant  comeliness.  For  our 
comely  parts  have  no  need;  but  God  hath 
tempered  the  body  together,  having  given 
more  abundant  honor  to  that  part  which 
lacked:  that  there  should  be  no  schism  in 
the  body;  but  that  the  members  should  have 
the  same  care  one  for  another.  And  whether 
one  member  suffer,  all  the  members  suffer 
with  it:  or  one  member  be  honored,  all  the 
members  rejoice  with  it.  Now  ye  are  the 
body  of  Christ,  and  members  in  particular." 
(i  Corinthians  xii,  12-27.)  Surely,  if  all  this 
mean  any  thing,  it  means  that  Christ  has 
but    one    body,   and   that   all   the  subjects  of 


86  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

salvation   through    him,    in    every   clime    and 
age,  are  members  in  that  one  body. 

But  one  question  can  be  raised  here,  and 
that  is  whether  this  Church,  which  is  the 
body  of  Christ,  includes  the  membership  of 
the  Church  under  the  Old  Testament.  It  is 
sometimes  urged  that  in  the  Old  Testament 
Church  there  was  a  different  covenant,  a  dif- 
ferent priesthood,  a  different  offering,  and  that 
the  differences  were  sufficient  to  make  a  differ- 
ent Church.  On  the  subject  of  the  covenant, 
we  said  enough  in  the  preceding  discourse; 
and  it  is  sufficient  now  to  remark  that  all  the 
priesthoods  and  offerings  and  bloody  sacri- 
fices and  watery  ablutions  pf  the  Old  Tes- 
tament were  meaningless  and  void  without 
Christ.  Christ  died  for  those  who  lived  be- 
fore his  coming,  as  truly  as  he  did  for  those 
who  lived  after  his  day.  If  we  sit  down  in 
the  kingdom  of  God,  it  will  be  with  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  and  Jacob.  There  never  was 
but  one  Savior,  one  Redeemer,  one  Media- 
tor, one  High-priest.  All  others  Avere  but 
types.  Jesus  Christ  was  "the  lamb  slain 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world."  He,  by 
the    grace    of    God,    tasted    death    for    every 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.     8/ 

man.  The  merits  of  his  atonement  rolled 
back  to  the  first  transgression  and  forward 
to  the  end  of  time,  extending  on  either  side 
to  the  uttermost  limit  of  human  guilt.  Then 
was  not  Christ  as  truly  the  Savior  of  the 
Church  before  the  incarnation  as  he  has  been 
since?  Was  he  not  with  the  Church  in  the 
wilderness?  Was  not  his  Spirit  in  the  proph- 
ets? (i  Peter  i,  lo,  ii.)  Was  he  not  in  all 
the  promises  and  types  and  ordinances  of  the 
Old  Testament?  Then  will  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Church  be  saved?  If  so,  will  it  be 
saved  through  Christ  or  not?  If  not,  through 
w^hom?  Where  is  there  another  Savior?  But, 
it  through  Christ,  how  but  through  his  death? 
Will  there  be  any  Church  in  heaven  not  re- 
deemed with  his  blood?  Will  there  be  any 
human  souls  in  heaven  not  of  his  Church? 
Will  there  be  a  Church  there  of  which  he 
is  not  the  Foundation,  the  Head,  the  High- 
priest,  and  the  Savior?  It  is  time,  you  see, 
that  we  begin  to  look  at  the  results  of  deny- 
ing the  oneness  of  the  Church  through  all 
the  ages.  Such  a  denial  involves  the  most 
appalling  absurdities,  and  leaves  us  without 
the  ability  to  explain  God's  dealings  with  the 


88  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ancients,  or  to  understand  the  services  of  his 
Church  or  the  meaning  of  the  types. 

In  proof  that  Christ  died  for  sinners  who 
lived  under  the  Old  Testament,  I  present  the 
following:  "And  for  this  cause  he  is  the  me- 
diator of  the  new  testament,  that  by  means 
of  death,  for  the  redemption  of  the  transgres- 
sions that  were  under  the  first  testament,  they 
which  are  called  might  receive  the  promise 
of  eternal  inheritance."  (Hebrews  ix,  15.) 
There  is  no  denying  this.  Christ  died  for 
sinners  who  lived  under  the  first  testament. 
His  was  the  only  real  sacrifice  ever  made, 
the  only  real  atonement.  He  is  the  only 
foundation,  the  only  hope;  and  that  Church 
which  is  his  body  is  the  only  Church. 

Take  a  Scriptural  illustration  of  this  sub- 
ject. I  refer  to  the  **  olive-tree, "  which  has 
often  been  employed  in  this  service  since  Paul 
first  gave  it:  ''For  if  the  first-fruit  be  holy, 
the  lump  is  also  holy:  and  if  the  root  be 
holy,  so  are  the  branches.  And  if  some  of 
the  branches  be  broken  off,  and  thou,  being 
a  wild  olive-tree,  wert  graffed  in  among  them, 
and  with  them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fat- 
ness of  the  olive-tree;    boast  not  against  the 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  89 

branches.  But  if  thou  boast,  thou  bearest 
not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee.  Thou  wilt 
say  then,  The  branches  were  broken  off,  that 
I  might  be  graffed  in.  Well;  because  of  un- 
belief they  were  broken  off,  and  thou  standest 
by  faith.  Be  not  high-minded,  but  fear:  for 
if  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take 
heed  lest  he  also  spare  not  thee.  Behold 
therefore  the  goodness  and  severity  of  God: 
on  them  which  fell,  severity;  but  toward 
thee,  goodness,  if  thou  continue  in  his  good- 
ness: otherwise  thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off. 
And  they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still  in  un- 
belief, shall  be  graffed  in:  for  God  is  able  to 
graff  them  in  again.  For  if  thou  wert  cut 
out  of  the  olive-tree  which  is  wild  by  nature, 
and  wert  graffed  contrary  to  nature  into  a 
good  olive-tree;  how  much  more  shall  these, 
which  be  the  natural  branches,  be  graffed  into 
their  own  olive-tree?"  (Romans  xi,  16-24.) 
What  does  this  olive-tree  represent?  Upon 
the  answer  to  this  question  must  hinge  the 
whole  meaning  of  the  passage.  Objectors  to 
the  doctrine  that  the  Church  is  one  through 
all  the  dispensations,  differ  at  this  point.  In- 
deed, nothing  seems  satisfactory  to  them  that 


90  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISiM. 

they  have  been  able  to  invent.  Some  tell  us 
it  represents  Abraham,  the  father  of  the  Jew- 
ish nation.  But  does  the  olive-tree  represent 
Abraham  ?  If  so,  the  natural  branches,  on  be- 
ing broken  off,  would  simply  be  broken  off 
from  being  the  natural  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham!  This  can  not  be  the  meaning;  and 
therefore  the  olive-tree  does  not  mean  Abra- 
ham. Others  tell  us  that  it  means  the  New 
Testament  Church,  of  which  the  apostles  were 
the  first-fruit  and  the  root.  But,  if  so,  how 
were  the  Jews  the  natural  branches  of  this 
tree?  And  how  were  they  broken  off  from  a 
tree  they  were  never  in?  This  will  never  do. 
The  only  sensible  answer  that  can  be  given 
is  that  the  olive-tree  represents  the  visible 
Church  of  God.  In  fuller  statement  of  the 
case,  I  .  lay  down  six  propositions:  i.  The 
tree  represents  the  visible  Church  of  God. 
2.  The  natural  branches  were  the  Jews,  the 
first  in  the  covenant.  3.  Only  those  guilty  of 
unbelief  were  broken  off.  4.  The  tree  was 
not  destroyed,  only  dismembered  in  part. 
5.  The  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  and  grafting 
them  in,  made  no  new  olive-tree,  no  new 
Church.      6.   The    Jews    are    hereafter    to    be 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  9 1 

grafted  in  again,  not  into  a  new  tree,  but 
into  the  same  old  olive-tree  from  which 
they  were  broken  off — ''into  their  own  olive- 
tree."  But  no  such  thing  could  ever  be,  if 
the  Church  to  which  they  belonged  went  out 
of  existence  with  the  passing  away  of  the 
ceremonial  law. 

Now  we  are  at  a  crisis  in  the  argument. 
The  visible  Church  is  represented  by  the  olive- 
tree.  That  olive-tree  survived  the  breaking 
off  of  the  natural  branches.  This  means  the 
exscinding  of  the  Jews,  who  had  been  in  the 
visible  Church  by  sufferance,  after  they  had 
lost  all  spiritual  qualifications,  until  the  time 
of  excision  came.  Then  they  were  rejected. 
The  kingdom  of  God  was  taken  from  them. 
Infants  were  in  this  visible  Church,  and 
were  recognized  by  the  visible  token  of  the 
covenant,  under  the  express  command  of 
God.  Were  they  cut  off  with  the  unbeliev- 
ing Jews?  Did  the  dismemberment  of  the 
olive-tree  carry  away  these  tender  scions? 
Were  they  guilty  of  unbelief?  Did  Christ 
regard  them  as  worthy  of  expulsion  when  he 
said,  "Suffer  them  to  come  unto  me,  and 
forbid   them   not?"     Did   he   regard    them   as 


92         .  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

excommunicated  when  he  said,    **0f  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven?" 

But  here  comes  another  objection.  It  is 
asserted  that  the  ground  of  infant  membership 
in  the  Church,  under  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant, was  a  fleshly  relation  to  Abraham,  or 
purchase  with  money.  Much  has  been  made 
of  the  ''fleshly  relation,"  under  the  "old 
covenant,"  and  the  spiritual  relation,  under 
the  new.  We  have  seen  w^hat  the  "old  cov- 
enant" was,  and  now  we  must  dispose  of  this 
"fleshly  relation."  If  the  "fleshly  relation" 
to  Abraham  were  the  ground  of  membership, 
none  could  enjoy  membership  without  that 
"fleshly  relation."  But  membership  was  never 
confined  to  the  fleshly  relation.  Abraham's 
own  children,  and  the  children  of  servants, 
born  in  his  house,  and  those  bought  with 
money,  w^ere  treated  alike.  All  received  the 
token  of  the  covenant.  "He  that  is  born  in 
thy  house,  and  he  that  is  bought  with  thy 
money,  must  needs  be  circumcised."  Pur- 
chase wdth  money  was  no  ground  of  mem- 
bership. Neither  w^as  the  fleshly  relation. 
Purchase  with  money  brought  the  child  of 
the   stranger   under  the  control  of  Abraham, 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  93 

and  the  duty  was  imposed  upon  him  to  bring 
all  that  were  under  his  control  into  covenant 
relation  with  God.  This  is  all  the  purchase 
with  money  had  to  do  with  membership  in 
the  Church.  The  ground  of  the  membership 
was  something  behind  the  fleshly  relation,  or 
the  purchase  with  money.  It  was  something 
in  regard  to  which  Abraham's  children,  and 
those  bought  of  the  stranger,  occupied  com- 
mon ground.  What  could  this  be,  except 
their  spiritual  relation  to  the  promised  Mes- 
siah? The  spiritual  aspect  of  the  covenant 
must  not  be  forgotten.  It  had  reference  to  a 
spiritual  seed,  to  spiritual  blessings,  and  spir- 
itual privileges.  The  promise,  "I  will  be  a 
God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee," 
implied  spiritual  privileges  and  blessings. 
The  change  of  Abram's  name  related  to  the 
extension  of  the  covenant  to  those  not  his  de- 
scendants. The  spiritual  element  ran  through 
the  whole  covenant.  Even  that  which  was 
literal  typified  the  spiritual.  Therefore  the 
idea  that  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  which 
gave  membership  to  infants,  related  merely 
to  the  flesh,  is  not  only  unsupported,  but  it 
is  false.      This   very  covenant,   that   gave   to 


94  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

infants  the  first  place  in  the  Church,  that  re- 
quired them  to  receive  the  sign  of  recogni- 
tion, contained  the  promise  of  the  Messiah, 
and  that  all  nations  should  be  blessed  through 
him.  It  is,  therefore,  plain  that  the  ground 
of  infant  membership  in  the  covenant,  and  in 
the  Church,  was  identical  with  the  ground  of 
their  salvation.  It  was  a  spiritual  relation  to 
the  promised  seed.  Abraham  himself  sus- 
tained the  spiritual  relation  to  his  promised 
seed,  the  Messiah,  which  secured  his  justifi- 
cation, not  by  the  flesh,  but  by  faith;  and 
his  infant  offspring  sustained  the  same  rela- 
tion to  Christ,  without  faith;  therefore  they 
were  alike  fit  for  the  same  token  of  the  cov- 
enant, and  they  both  received  it.  The  ground 
of  Church  membership  was  then,  as  now,  the 
ground  of  salvation.  The  sign  of  member- 
ship is  the  sign  of  salvation.  Hence,  those 
born  in  Abraham's  house,  and  those  bought 
with  money,  Avere  given  the  religious  rite  of 
circumcision  on  the  same  terms.  The  "fleshly 
relation"  was  not  the  ground  of  it  in  any  case. 
''The  unconditional  benefits  of  the  atone- 
ment" reached  back  to  the  infant  offspring 
of    Abraham     and    to    the    children    of   the 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  95 

stranger  alike.  No  more  deceptive  figment 
of  the  imagination  was  ever  palmed  upon  the 
credulity  of  honest  people  than  that  Church 
membership,  under  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
was  founded  in  a  fleshly  relation.  It  is  pure 
fiction,  as  soulless  and  unsubstantial  as  an  in- 
fant's dream.  Would  that  it  were  as  harm- 
less !  The  more  we  examine  this  subject, 
the  more  clearly  it  appears  that  the  ground 
of  membership  in  the  Church,  under  the  cov- 
enant that  first  organized  the  Church  and 
placed  infants  in  it,  is  the  identical  ground 
of  their  membership  in  the  kingdom  of  God 
to-day. 

We  come  now  to  another  vital  question. 
Was  there  any  religious  meaning,  or  spiritual 
signification,  in  circumcision?  Circumcision 
was  the  token  of  the  covenant,  given  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  infant  child.  It  marked  their 
covenant  relation,  and  betokened  to  them 
the  faithfulness  of  God,  and  pointed  to  the 
realization  of  all  that  was  promised  in  the 
covenant.  But  it  is  now  claimed  that  it  was 
not  a  religious  rite;  that  it  was  simply  a 
fleshly  ordinance,  and  had  in  it  nothing  of  a 
religious  or  spiritual  character.     We  see  at  a 


96  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

glance  how  important  this  ground  is  to  all 
anti-Pedobaptists,  and  they  have  not  failed  to 
make  the  most  of  it.  But  the  position  will 
not  endure  scrutiny.  Time  will  permit  only 
a  hasty  glance  at  the  subject,  and  I  shall  pre- 
fer at  once  to  take  affirmative  ground.  I  ask 
careful  attention  to  the  religions  meaning  of 
circumcision. 

My  purpose  is  to  compare  circumcision 
and  baptism,  and  no  mistake  should  be  made 
in  regard  to  the  points  of  comparison.  Cir- 
cumcision is  not  baptism ;  nor  is  baptism  like 
circumcision,  in  its  nature,  subjects,  or  de- 
sign. There  is  a  substantial  difference  be- 
tween the  two  rites  in  all  these  respects. 
Nor  need  we  be  concerned  about  the  manner 
in  which  baptism  superseded  circumcision. 
It  is  a  fact,  admitted  on  all  sides,  that  cir- 
cumcision was  laid  aside  when  the  ceremonial- 
law  passed  away,  and  that  baptism  was  insti- 
tuted, by  the  authority  of  Christ,  as  the  badge 
of  membership  in  the  Church  of  God.  These 
two  rites  differ  widely  in  many  things;  but 
with  the  points  of  difference  we  now  have 
nothing  to  do.  Our  business  is  with  one 
single   point   of  agreement.     I  speak  of  the 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.     97 

Spiritual  import  of  circumcision,  and  will  show 
that  that  import  is  precisely  the  same  as  the 
spiritual  import  of  baptism.  Circumcision 
had  a  civil  bearing,  a  relation  to  the  Jewish 
nationality;  but  that  is  nothing  to  the  ques- 
tion before  us.  It  had  a  religious  use,  a 
spiritual  significance.  The  outward  rite  im- 
ported the  cutting  off  of  the  sinful  propensi- 
ties, the  restraint  of  all  wicked  passions  and 
indulgences.  It  symbolized  the  circumcision 
of  the  heart.  Hence  Paul  said:  **He  is  not 
a  Jew  which  is  one  outwardly;  neither  is  that 
circumcision  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh; 
but  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly,  and 
circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit, 
and  not  in  the  letter;  whose  praise  is  not  of 
men,  but  of  God."  (Romans  ii,  2'^,  29.) 
Circumcision  was  emblematical;  it  pointed  to 
the  moral  purification  of  the  heart.  Hence 
the  command,  ''Circumcise  the  foreskin  of 
your  hearts,  and  be  no  more  stiff-necked." 
(Deuteronomy  x,  16.)  Hence,  also,  the 
promise,  "The  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise 
thy  heart  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all 
thy  heart."  (Deuteronomy  xxx,  6.)  These 
Scriptures  show  that  the  religious  meaning 
7 


98  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

which  Paul  put  upon  the  rite  was  not  a  mere 
figurative  meaning,  suggested  by  the  spirit- 
uaHty  of  his  Christian  doctrine,  but  that  it 
was  its  old  and  well-settled  meaning  under 
the  law.  It  was  a  religious  rite  from  the  be- 
ginning, even  before  it  was  invested  with  any 
civil  or  national  meaning. 

In  the  case  of  Abraham,  it  had  a  religious 
meaning,  most  unquestionably.  ' '  He  received 
the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  the  faith  which  he  had,  being  yet 
uncircumcised."  (Romans  iv,  11.)  What- 
ever else  circumcision  was  made  under  the 
law,  as  a  civil  rite,  it  was,  from  its  first  ap- 
pointment as  the  token  of  the  covenant,  a 
''seal  of  righteousness" — not»  of  faith,  nor 
of  repentance,  nor  of  obedience,  but  of 
** righteousness;"  and  righteousness  here  is 
to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  justification. 
"Abraham  beUeved  God,  and  it  was  ac- 
counted to  him  for  righteousness;"  and  this 
righteousness  of  faith  was  "sealed"  by  cir- 
cumcision. It  was  a  significant  religious  or- 
dinance, and  as  such  it  was  given  to  infants; 
not  to  seal  their  faith,  for  they  did  not  exer- 
cise   faith;    nor    to   seal   native   holiness,    for 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  99 

they  possessed  nothing  of  the  kind;  but  to 
seal  their  justification  in  the  Lord  Messiah, 
the  seed  of  Abraham.  It  was  to  them  the 
badge  of  their  covenant  relation.  It  marked 
them  as  belonging  to  the  congregation  of  the 
Lord.  It  proclaimed  them  capable  of  re- 
ceiving a  religious  rite,  and  able  to  sustain  a 
covenant  relation.  Those  who  laugh  at  infant 
baptism  would  probably  have  ridiculed  all 
this ;  but  it  was  the  appointment  of  the  Lord 
notwithstanding.  The  Abrahamic  covenant 
gave  them  this  religious  rite,  and  that  cove- 
nant is  the  Gospel  covenant.  Only  the  tem- 
poral part  of  that  covenant  passed  away  by 
fulfillment,  while  all  that  was  religious  in  it 
remains  in  full  force  under  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  and  infants  are  as  capable  of  a  religious 
ordinance  now  as  they  were  then.  The  full 
development  of  the  covenant  under  the  Gos- 
pel does  not  restrict,  but  enlarges,  the  priv- 
ileges of  the  covenanted  people  of  God.  It 
turns  out  none  but  the  unbelieving.  What, 
then,  is  the  conclusion?  Infants  were  in  the 
covenant;  they  received  the  token;  that  was 
a  religious  rite;  they  were  dedicated  to  God, 
and  their  covenant  privileges  have  never  been 


lOO  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

curtailed.  And  baptism,  as  a  religious  rite 
under  the  New  Testament,  possesses  the  same 
spiritual  import  and  sig7iificatio7i  that  belonged 
to  circumcision  under  the  Old  Testament.  From 
this  proposition  there  can  be  no  dissent;  and 
yet,  if  admitted,  it  will  follow  that  no  objec- 
tion can  be  urged  against  infant  baptism  that 
might  not  have  been  urged  with  the  same 
force  against  the  circumcision  of  infants  under 
the  former  dispensation. 

Here  we  stand.  The  spiritual  import  of 
baptism  is  precisely  what  the  spiritual  import 
of  circumcision  was  under  the  Old  Testament. 
Baptism  is  a  religious  rite,  as  was  circumcis- 
ion. It  is  emblematical,  as  was  circumcision. 
It  symbolizes  the  cutting  off  of  sin,  or  the 
moral  purification  of  the  heart,  as  did  cir- 
cumcision. It  is  the  mark,  or  token,  of  rec- 
ognition in  the  covenant  or  Church  of  God, 
as  was  circumcision.  It  therefore  follows  that 
baptism  not  only  has  the  same  meaning,  but 
that  it  has  the  same  use,  or  fills  the  same 
office,  that  belonged  to  circumcision.  Of 
course,  it  has  a  wider  application,  as  it  be- 
longs to  a  broader  and  freer  dispensation — 
one  in  which  there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek, 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.         lOI 

bond   nor  free,   male  nor  female,   but  all  are 
one  in  Christ. 

In  confirmation  of  all  this,  I  present  the 
following:  **And  ye  are  complete  in  him, 
which  is  the  head  of  all  principality  and 
power:  in  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised 
with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands, 
in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the 
flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ:  buried 
with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are 
risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  oper- 
ation of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead."  (Colossians  ii,  10-12.)  Upon  this  I 
remark:  i.  The  subject  is  our  completeness 
in  Christ.  2.  The  allusion  to  circumcision  is 
not  to  its  outward  form,  but  to  its  spiritual 
import.  3.  The  allusion  to  baptism  is  not 
to  its  mode,  but  to  its  signification.  4.  The 
experience  which  is  illustrated  by  these  two 
rites  is  the  same.  5.  In  this  twofold  illustra- 
tion of  the  same  experience,  the  two  rites  are 
so  blended  and  applied  as  to  demonstrate  the 
identity  of  their  import.  6.  The  conclusion 
is  that  what  circumcision  was  to  the  Jew, 
in  its  religious  meaning,  baptism  is  to  the 
Christian.      From    this    there    is   no    escape. 


102  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

No  enlargement  upon  the  civil  bearing  of 
circumcision,  or  setting  forth  of  specific  dif- 
ferences between  other  features  of  the  two 
rites,  will  be  of  any  avail  in  setting  aside 
the  force  of  this  argument.  If  baptism  is 
the  same  to  the  Christian  that  circumcision 
was  to  the  Jew;  if  it  occupies  the  same  place 
in  the  Church,  and  has  the  same  religious 
meaning,  use,  and  design;  if  it  is  the  seal  of 
the  same  spiritual  blessings  and  privileges, 
there  is  no  power  in  the  universe  to  prevent 
unprejudiced  minds  from  believing  that  bap- 
tism is  just  as  appropriate,  and  in  every  way 
as  suitable  to  infants  now,  as  circumcision 
was  under  the  law.  The  ''circumcision  made 
without  hands"  was  represented  by  the  cir- 
cumcision made  with  hands.  It  meant  spir- 
itual regeneration.  This  is  precisely  what 
baptism  represents.  The  "old  man,"  ''the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  is  "put  off," 
"crucified,"  "dead,"  "buried"  in  baptism. 
This  is  the  moral  result  which  baptism  sym- 
bolizes. By  this  process  of  spiritual  regener- 
ation we  are  inducted  into  Christ,  and  being 
in  him,  the  body  of  sin  being  destroyed,  we 
set  forth  our  union  and  completeness  in  him 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.         103 

by  baptism.  The  conclusion,  the  outcome 
of  the  argument,  is  inevitable.  The  Church 
is  the  same;  the  covenant  is  the  same;  the 
token  is  the  same  in  religious  meaning,  and 
involves  no  religious  element  or  principle  not 
found  in  the  old  form,  in  which,  by  express 
command  of  God,  it  was  given  to  infants. 

Here  we  conclude.  The  one  Church  is 
the  body  of  Christ.  It  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  It  was  begun  as  a  visible  organiza- 
tion in  the  family  of  Abraham,  chartered  by 
"the  everlasting  covenant"  which  God  made 
with  him  who  was  to  be  the  father  of  many 
nations.  It  continued  to  exist  under  the  dis- 
pensation of  the  law,  and  survived  the  expi- 
ration of  the  law  by  limitation.  It  started 
into  a  new  life  under  the  Gospel,  and  will 
continue  to  be  the  Church  and  body  of  Christ 
until  it  shall  be  presented  in  the  day  of 
the  Lord,  a  glorious  Church,  without  spot  or 
wrinkle  or  any  such  thing.  God  never  had 
any  other  Church.  Christ  never  redeemed 
any  other  Church.  The  Holy  Ghost  never 
quickened  any  other  Church.  National  dis- 
tinctions are  nothing  here.  This  Church 
knows   nothing   of   the   kind.      Questions   of 


I04  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ecclesiastical  rule  are  foreign  to  its  essential 
being;  they  form  none  of  its  actual  charac- 
teristics, and  affect  not  its  integrity  as  the 
Church  of  God.  Forms  of  worship,  and 
modes  and  ceremonies,  can  neither  make  nor 
destroy  it.  Denominational  distinctions  sink 
o-ut  of  sight  in  this  presence.  It  is  not  the 
Jewish  Church,  nor  the  CJuistian  Church. 
God  never  named  his  Church.  His  cove- 
nanted people  are  his  Church.  This  is  the 
only  name  given  them  as  an  association. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  Scriptures  about  a 
Jewish  or  a  Christian  Church.  The  Church 
once  existed  principally  among  the  Jews,  but 
it  was  never  a  Jewish  Church.  It  was  never 
identical  with  the  Jewish  nation.  Its  ritual, 
under  the  Mosaic  economy,  should  not  be 
confounded  with  the  civil  polity  of  the  nation. 
Many  Jews  were  not  accepted  in  the  "con- 
gregation of  the  Lord,"  and  many  proselyted 
Gentiles  were  admitted  to  full  fellowship. 
When  the  great  body  of  the  Jews  were  turned 
out,  and  the  Gentiles  called  in,  it  did  not  be- 
come a  Gentile  Church.  It  was  always  God's 
Church,  one  and  singular.  Years  after  the  full 
ushering  in  of  the  dispensation  at  Pentecost, 


THE  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH.         105 

the  disciples  were  called  Christians  at  An- 
tioch — by  whom,  no  one  knows.  The  name 
was  given  in  ignorance,  and  as  an  epithet  of 
reproach,  but  was  afterward  accepted  as  an 
honorable  title,  and  so  continues.  If  God 
had  intended  to  give  an  authoritative  name, 
he  would  have  done  it  at  the  beginning,  at 
Jerusalem.  I  care  not,  then,  for  names  or 
ceremonies ;  nor  am  I  concerned  about  changes 
in  the  government  of  the  Church,  in  its  form, 
its  rites,  or  worship;  nor  does  it  matter  that 
every  typical  institution  was  forever  dissolved : 
the  great  truth  remains  that  God's  Church 
was  not  abolished.  It  only  passed  from  the 
bondage  of  pupilage  to  the  freedom  of  ma- 
turity, carrying  to  this  higher  plane  all  the 
spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  the  heirs  of 
promise. 


I06  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


Discourse  IV. 

ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

**Go   ye    therefore,   and    teach   all   nations,   baptizing 
them,"  etc. — Matt,  xxviii,  19. 

I  PROPOSE,  in  this  discourse,  to  trace  the 
origin  of  infant  baptism,  and  account  for 
it  as  well  as  I  can  in  the  time  at  command; 
but  we  must  first  glance  hastily  at  some  objec- 
tions to  the  practice  which  have  not  yet  come 
under  consideration. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  infants  can  not 
meet  the  design  of  the  ordinance.  Perhaps 
they  could  not  fully,  if  they  were  always  to 
remain  infants;  but  the  ordinance  has  refer- 
ence to  their  future  lives.  It  is  a  covenant 
act,  and  is  intended  to  cover  the  whole  life 
of  the  person  receiving  it,  whether  he  be  bap- 
tized in  infancy,  in  youth,  or  in  manhood. 
The  significance  of  the  rite  is  by  no  means 
restricted  to  the  hour  of  its  administration. 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  10/ 

All  the  prayers  and  covenant  forms  adopted 
by  the  Church  for  this  service  contemplate 
the  little  ones  as  living,  growing  up,  and 
being  taught  the  nature  of  the  ordinance 
and  the  obligations  accompanying  it.  If 
they  die  in  infancy,  they  are  neither  bene- 
fited nor  harmed  by  baptism.  In  that  event 
the  design  fails,  of  course,  as  life  itself  ceases 
and  all  earthly  hopes  fail;  but,  if  they  live, 
they  can  use  their  baptism,  and  make  it  the 
"answer  of  a  good  conscience"  as  well  as 
if  it  were  deferred  until  their  mature  years. 
The  significance  of  the  ordinance  is  met  and 
kept  fresh  only  by  fulfilling  the  covenant 
engagements  it  implies.  As,  for  instance,  a 
young  man,  just  entering  the  activities  of 
manhood,  accepts  the  Gospel  and  is  baptized. 
He  soon  becomes  involved  in  worldly  pur- 
suits, neglects  duty,  loses  faith,  and  goes  out 
of  the  Church.  He  continues  a  worldly  man 
for  twenty,  thirty,  or  forty  years,  and  then 
remembers  his  early  vows,  and  penitently  re- 
turns to  Christ  and  the  Church.  His  baptism 
is  not  repeated.  Its  design  and  significance 
had  been  lost  by  disobedience;  but  these  are 
revived   by  returning  faith.     Only  carry  this 


I08  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

principle  to  the  case  of  infants,  and  all  is 
clear.  If  in  after  life  they  meet  their  cove- 
nant obligations,  their  baptism  is  as  fresh  and 
new  and  significant  every  morning  as  if  just 
administered.  As  just  remarked,  it  covers 
the  whole  life. 

Baptism  is  a  significant  rite.  It  points  to 
something  inward  and  spiritual.  It  is  the  or- 
dained emblem  of  salvation  from  sin,  through 
the  mediation  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  the  ordinance  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  designed  to  represent 
the  whole  office  and  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
moral  renovation  of  the  soul.  All  the  pro- 
vision made  for  the  salvation  of  any  human 
soul  is  in  the  death  of  Christ;  and  all  the 
application  of  that  provision  to  the  salvation 
of  the  soul  is  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  the 
Lord's-supper,  the  bread  and  wine  are  em- 
blems of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ; 
and,  in  baptism,  the  water  is  the  emblem  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  All  that  are  saved  through 
Christ  are  saved  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Then,  wherever  the  Holy  Spirit  goes 
in  the  functions  of  his  office,  there  the  water 
of  baptism,   the   standing   emblem,    may  go. 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  IO9 

But  the  Spirit  applies  the  atoning  blood  to 
all  dying  in  infancy;  therefore  such  may  be 
baptized.  And  the  Spirit  also  applies  the 
blood  of  Christ  to  the  justification  of  all  in- 
fants, so  as  to  constitute  them  subjects  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  Hence  the  language  of 
our  Church:  ''We  hold  that  all  children,  by 
virtue  of  the  unconditional  benefits  of  the 
atonement,  are  members  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  therefore  graciously  entitled  to  bap- 
tism." Baptism  is  the  emblem  of  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  seal  of  a  gracious 
state.  It  is  not  an  emblem  or  seal  of  faith; 
for  then  faith  might  be  a  prerequisite  to  bap- 
tism. It  is  not  an  emblem  or  seal  of  repent- 
ance; for  then  repentance  might  be  deemed  a 
qualification  for  baptism.  Its  emblematic  use 
relates  to  the  Spirit's  work;  and,  as  a  seal,  it 
marks  our  covenant  relation  and  gracious  ac- 
ceptance in  the  beloved.  And  this  emblem- 
atic use  may  be  anticipatory  or  reflective; 
but  its  relation  to  the  Spirit  is  fixed  and 
unalterable. 

It  is  urged  that  baptism  implies  an  obliga- 
tion to  die  unto  sin  and  live  unto  righteous- 
ness.    So  it  does;   but  it  is  not  baptism  that 


no  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

imposes  the  obligation.  The  obligation  to  a 
holy  life  is  from  the  Lord,  and  imperative. 
Nor  is  it  necessary  to  wait  until  the  person 
grows  up  and  violates  this  obligation,  before 
giving  him  the  ordinance  which  points  to  it. 
Baptism,  as  before  remarked,  is  not  designed 
merely  for  the  hour  of  its  administration.  It 
stands  as  the  emblem  of  the  Spirit's  work, 
reminding  us  of  our  impurities  and  need  of 
cleansing  all  through  life;  and  if  it  can  retain 
its  significancy  for  thirty,  fifty,  or  seventy 
years,  pointing  with  all  the  vividness  of  a 
newly  received  ordinance  to  the  covenant  ob- 
ligations which  heaven  has  imposed,  surely  it 
does  not  lose  its  significancy  by  having  been 
received  before  those  obligations  were  felt. 

It  is  also  objected  that  infant  baptism  in- 
terferes with  the  freedom  of  choice.  Let  us 
see,  if  we  can,  wherein.  The  obligations  it 
implies  exist,  whether  the  child  be  baptized 
or  not;  and  I  do  not  see  that  any  thing 
which  God  has  left  to  choice  is  hindered  or 
forestalled  by  infant  baptism.  We  have  no 
right  to  choose  Avhether  we  will  be  baptized 
or  not;  for  baptism  is  duty,  and  to  refuse 
to    be    baptized    is    an   abuse    of   the    power 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  1 1 1 

of  choice;  therefore,  when  parents  supersede 
the  choice  of  their  children  in  this  regard  by- 
having  them  baptized  in  infancy,  there  is  no 
right  violated  or  infringed.  Our  ideas  of  the 
right  of  choice  in  matters  pertaining  to  relig- 
ion are  often  crude,  and,  unless  guarded,  will 
take  unwarranted  directions.  The  right  of 
choice  can  only  relate  to  modes  and  forms 
and  things  indifferent  in  themselves.  The  ob- 
ligation to  be  baptized,  and  to  do  all  the 
things  that  baptism  impHes,  is  not  optional 
with  us,  but  duty  in  the  highest  sense;  and 
baptism,  whenever  received,  points  to  the 
duty.  Nor  does  infant  baptism  hinder  any 
one  from  the  performance  of  any  service  that 
the  Lord  requires.  It  leaves  the  conscience 
perfectly  free,  to  the  full  extent  to  which  God 
has  invested  it  with  freedom.  Not  a  single 
burden  does  it  impose  which  God  has  not 
imposed;  and  not  a  single  fetter  does  it  bind 
on  the  soul  to  cramp  it,  or  to  hinder  it  in 
coming  freely  to  Christ,  or  to  interfere  with 
its  doing  from  the  heart  any  duty  pertaining 
to  the  'Christian  life.  How,  then,  does  it  in- 
terfere with  choice  in  any  thing  that  is  left  to 
choice? 


112  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

This  objection  proves  too  much,  if  it  prove 
any  thing.  If  baptism  in  infancy  interferes 
with  choice,  heart-work,  or  free  action  in  any 
respect  that  violates  rights,  how  much  more 
does  early  religious  educatio7il  The  opposers 
of  infant  baptism  will  take  hold  of  the  tender, 
unsophisticated  minds  of  their  little  ones,  and 
instill  into  them  thoughts,  sentiments,  princi- 
ples, biases,  and  prejudices,  and  such  peculiar 
views  of  religion  as  will  influence  and  control 
them,  and  be  as  permanent  as  the  mind  itself 
They  hesitate  not  to  take  advantage  of  their 
children's  ignorance  and  tenderness,  and  of 
their  susceptibility  to  parental  influence,  to 
mold  their  religious  character  and  direct  their 
conduct  and  determine  their  Church  relations, 
without  any  regard  to  their  choice,  or  to  what 
might  afterward  become  their  choice;  and  in 
all  this  they  do  right.  No  matter  if  in  this 
way  they  impress  upon  their  children  views 
and  principles,  and  bind  upon  their  souls  a 
set  of  notions,  that  will  cleave  to  them  in 
time  and  in  eternity.  They  have  the  right 
to  do  so,  and  need  only  be  careful  to  teach 
them  the  truth  and  commit  them  to  the  right. 
The   responsibility  to   do   all   this   is   on   the 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  II3 

parents;  and  there  is  an  important  sphere  in 
which  parents  must  act  for  their  children — 
must  think  for  them,  control  them,  and  do 
all  they  can  to  commit  them  to  a  life  of  obe- 
dience to  God.  How  comes  it,  then,  that 
they  may  teach  their  children,  control  them, 
and  impress  upon  them  lessons  that  will  de- 
termine their  whole  future,  and  yet,  if  they 
enter  them  into  God's  covenant,  and  place 
upon  them  the  badge  of  recognition  in  the 
Church,  and  thereby  dedicate  them  to  God's 
service,  they  are  interfering  with  the  rights 
of  conscience  or  the  freedom  of  choice?  This 
objection,  when  simmered  down  to  its  proper 
substance,  has  nothing  in  it  whatever.  If 
there  is  any  violation  of  rights  in  this  con- 
nection, it  is  on  the  other  side.  Those  who 
refuse  to  baptize  the  children,  refuse  them 
the  privilege  of  recognition  among  the  cove- 
nanted people  of  God.  They  refuse  to  re- 
ceive them  in  the  name  of  the  Redeemer! 
They  deny  them  a  place  in  the  kingdom  of 
God!  And  then  they  cry  out  to  us,  as  if  by 
baptizing  them,  and  thus  bringing  them  into 
recognition  as  lambs  in  the  Redeemer's  fold, 
and   placing  upon  them  the  mark  or  seal   of 


1 14  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

God's  gracious  covenant,  as  Abraham  did,  we 
were  robbing  them  of  some  precious  rights! 
But  what  right  of  choice  in  regard  to  bap- 
tism do  anti-Pedobaptists  give  their  children 
after  they  grow  up?  Do  they  allow  them  to 
choose  the  mode?  Do  they  allow  them  any 
choice  whatever  other  than  to  come  to  bap- 
tism in  a  certain  form  or  stay  away  from  all 
sacraments  and  Church  privileges? 

But  it  is  insisted  that  the  Scriptures  make 
faith  a  prerequisite  to  baptism.  This  has  been 
answered  in  part;  but  now  I  wish  to  remark 
that  the  Scriptures  never  make  faith  a  pre- 
requisite to  baptism  in  any  instance  except 
where  it  is  a  prerequisite  to  salvation.  In 
the  case  of  unbaptized  adults,  who  must  re- 
pent and  believe  the  Gospel  in  order  to  sal- 
vation, faith  is  properly  required  in  order  to 
baptism;  but  then  the  baptism  relates  to  the 
salvation,  and  not  to  the  faith.  It  is  not  a 
symbol  of  faith,  nor  a  seal  of  faith,  nor  does 
it  in  any  way  represent  faith,  but  only  the 
salvation  which  faith  secures.  Then,  wher- 
ever the  salvation  is,  there  baptism  may 
go;  and  every  argument  that  would  deprive 
the  infant  of  baptism  for  the  want  of  faith, 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  1 1 5 

would   deprive   it   of   salvation   on   the   same 
ground. 

But  the  passage  in  the  great  commission 
on  which  this  objection  is  founded  does  not 
sustain  it.  In  so  far  as  the  application  to 
adults  is  concerned,  we  shall  not  dispute; 
but  the  language,  rightly  understood,  is  in 
complete  harmony  with  infant  baptism;  and, 
addressed  to  the  apostles,  as  it  was,  it  would 
authorize  them  to  practice  infant  baptism,  in 
the  absence  of  any  prohibition,  as  we  shall 
shortly  see.  But  now  I  direct  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  commission  does  not  fix  the 
relative  order  of  baptism  and  faith.  It  re- 
quires both,  but  does  not  say  which  shall 
come  first.  In  Matthew  xxviii,  19,  the  read- 
ing is,  "Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  {ntathe- 
teusate,  disciple)  all  nations,  baptizing  them." 
The  first  thing  to  do  is  to  ''disciple  the  na- 
tions," and  this  by  baptizing  them.  In  Mark 
xvi,  15,  16,  the  reading  is:  "Go  ye  into  all 
the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every 
creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall 
be  damned."  The  baptized  believer  shall  be 
saved.      Who   is   he?      He  that  believes,  and 


Il6  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

keeps  the  covenant  obligations  of  his  baptism. 
But  what  about  the  order?  ''He  that  be- 
lieveth,  having  been  baptized,  shall  be  saved," 
is  the  literal  rendering.  The  participial  form 
of  the  verb,  baptistheis,  with  the  aorist  tense, 
fully  justifies  this  rendering.  Then,  the  rela- 
tive order  of  the  believing  and  being  bap- 
tized is  not  definitely  fixed.  The  time  of  the 
baptism  is  not  specified ;  so  I  come  back  to 
the  point,  that  the  act  of  faith  is  not  a  pre- 
requisite to  baptism,  only  where  it  is  to  sal- 
vation; and  when  the  baptism  precedes  the 
faith,  as  with  infants,  the  full  demand  of  the 
general  commission  is  met.  And  when  in- 
fants are  "discipled"  by  baptism,  and  then 
taught,  the  order  of  the  commission,  as  given 
by  Matthew,  is  literally  kept. 

And,  now,  I  assume  that  the  apostles 
would  baptize  the  children,  under  this  com- 
mission, unless  prohibited  by  express  instruc- 
tion to  the  contrary. 

I  argue  this,  not  from  the  rendering  al- 
ready given  to  the  command  to  baptize  the 
nations,  but  from  their  habits  and  impressions 
as  Jews.  They  knew  that  children  had  been 
associated  with  their  parents  in  covenant  and 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  11/ 

Church  relations  ever  since  the  days  of 
Abraham,  and  they  had  never  known  a 
Church  from  which  the  httle  ones  were  ex- 
cluded. They  were  familiar  with  the  fact 
that,  under  the  Old  Testament,  the  rite  of 
circumcision  was  given  them  as  a  religious 
act.  Therefore  they  could  not  have  been 
prejudiced  against  infant  membership ;  and 
they  certainly  had  not  forgotten  the  Master's 
teaching  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  infants 
to  the  kingdom  of  God.  All  these  facts 
would  predispose  them  toward  infant  bap- 
tism. But  more  than  this.  They  were  fa- 
miliar with  the  religious  use  of  water,  in  all 
those  services  among  the  Jews  which  gave 
rise  to  the  practice  of  baptisms.  In  a  word, 
they  were  accustomed  to  baptism,  as  it  had 
been  practiced  in  their  nation  for  some  hun- 
dreds of  years;  and  to  the  baptism  of  infants 
as  well  as  adults.  The  numerous  ''wash- 
ings'* imposed  by  the  law,  including  cere- 
monial purifications  after  touching  the  dead, 
and  after  contact  with  unclean  persons,  and 
in  the  performance  of  religious  duties,  were 
called  baptisms,  long  before  the  coming  of 
Christ.      These   are    the    "divers    baptisms," 


Il8  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

translated  ** divers  washings,"  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews.  To  these  must  be  added 
the  ceremonial  baptisms  enjoined  by  tradi- 
tion, which  the  Jews  regarded  Avith  equal 
respect,  and  observed  with  punctilious  care- 
fulness. It  is  to  these  ** baptisms"  the  Sa- 
vior alludes,  when  he  says,  Mark  vii,  3,4: 
**For  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,  except 
they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding 
the  tradition  of  the  elders.  And  when  they 
come  from  market,  except  they  wash  (bapti- 
S07itai)  they  eat  not.  And  many  other  things 
there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold, 
as  the  washing  {baptistnons)  of  cups,  and  pots, 
and  brazen  vessels,  and  tables."  Now,  these 
baptisms,  although  possessing  no  higher  au- 
thority than  tradition,  had  taken  such  hold 
on  the  mind  of  the  Jewish  nation,  that  all 
classes  were  familiar  with  them,  and  they 
would  inevitably  give  color  to  any  general 
command  the  Savior  would  give  to  baptize 
the  people,  preparatory  to  instructing  them 
in  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  a  holy  life. 

And  to  all  this — in  order  to  reach  the  sur- 
roundings of  the  apostles,  and  the  influences 
arising  from  familiar  customs  that  would  affect 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  1 19 

their  minds  in  the  interpretation  of  the  gen- 
eral command  to  baptize — must  be  added  the 
ancient  and  continued  practice  of  baptizing 
proselytes  and  their  families,  including  infant 
children. 

This  brings  up  the  question  of  proselyte 
baptism — a  question  which  has  not  always 
been  fairly  treated.  The  opposers  of  infant 
baptism  have  labored  to  throw  discredit  on 
the  testimony  that  supports  it,  m.ainly  because 
Josephus  and  Philo  say  nothing  about  it.  But 
these  authors  did  not  write  on  subjects  that 
necessarily  involved  that  question,  and  we 
might  as  well  infer,  from  their  silence,  that  it 
was  so  common  and  well  understood  as  to 
escape  mention  in  that  way,  as  that  they 
knew  nothing  about  it.  Much,  also,  is  said 
in  opposition,  about  the  absurdity  or  unrea- 
sonableness of  supposing  our  Lord  and  Savior 
learned  his  doctrines,  and  received  his  insti- 
tutions, from  the  Jews,  or  any  other  human 
source.  But  this  difficulty  is  all  imaginary, 
and  creates  a  false  issue.  When  we  appeal 
to  the  practices  which  were  familiar,  we  do 
not  intimate  that  Jesus  Christ  learned  from 
them,  or  founded  his  institutions  upon  them; 


120  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

nor  do  we  suppose  that,  so  far  as  he  adopted 
them,  or  allowed  his  disciples  to  follow  them, 
he  attached  to  them  the  same  meaning,  in 
every  respect,  that  the  Jews  did.  But  that 
he  did  take  baptism  as  an  existing  Jewish 
practice,  and  give  it  a  new  application,  is 
known  beyond  question.  And  that  he  took 
the  Jewish  feast  of  the  Passover,  and  changed 
it  slightly  in  form,  and  turned  it  into  the  per- 
petual memorial  of  his  death,  is  well  known. 
And  it  is  known  that  he  adopted  no  new  form 
of  worship  for  the  congregations  of  his  people^ 
but  allowed  them  to  follow  the  customs  of 
the  synagogues  in  this  important  respect. 
Then,  why  should  we  not  suppose  that  the 
custom  of  the  Jews,  with  reference  to  the 
baptism  of  proselytes,  would  affect  the  minds 
of  the  apostles,  in  construing  and  applying 
the  words  of  the  general  commission  to  "dis- 
ciple the  nations,  baptizing  them?"  There 
is  not  only  no  reason  for  disallowing  this, 
but  the  highest  reason  for  it;  and  this  is  all 
we  claim  in  our  appeal  to  proselyte  baptism. 
We  do  not  argue  that  it  is  right  for  us  be- 
cause the  Jews  practiced  it;  nor  that  Christ 
learned   it   from   them ;    nor  that  he  founded 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  121 

his  command  on  their  custom;  but,  simply, 
that  he  and  his  disciples  were  familiar  with 
it,  as  a  Jewish  rite,  and  that,  in  adapting 
baptism  to  the  Gospel  purpose,  he  took  it  as 
he  found  it,  gave  a  new  meaning  and  apph- 
cation  to  it,  and  yet  that  he  did  not  prohibit 
its  application  to  infants.  And  we  hold  that 
this  fact,  in  connection  with  his  own  recog- 
nition of  infants  as  **of  the  kingdom,"  and 
his  command  that  they  be  "received  in  his 
name,"  and  calling  them  believers,  and,  the 
other  fact  that  they  had  always  been  in  the 
covenant,  by  circumcision,  would  influence 
the  apostles  in  favor  of  infant  baptism ;  so 
that,  without  a  positive  prohibition,  they 
would  practice  it,  under  the  command  to 
disciple  all  nations. 

It  is  now  generally  admitted  by  the  learned 
that  the  Jews  practiced  infant  baptism  in  re- 
ceiving the  families  of  Gentiles  that  were 
proselyted  to  the  Jewish  religion.  The  evi- 
dence of  this  fact  is  cumulative,  and  of  suffl- 
eient  force  to  satisfy  such  men  as  Selden,  Light- 
foot,  Wall,  Dantz,  Wetstein,  Beza,  Buxtorf, 
Witsius,  and  many  others,  men  of  the  highest 
repute   for   learning,  who  have  examined  the 


122  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

subject  thoroughly,  from  the  most  original 
sources.  Some  others,  of  good  standing  for 
general  learning,  express  doubts ;  but  those 
doubts  are  connected  with  erroneous  views 
of  the  uses  made  of  the  fact,  or  with  evident 
lack  of  thorough  examination.  The  decided 
preponderance  of  testimony  is  in  favor  of  the 
antiquity  of  the  practice,  when  Christ  taught 
in  the  Temple  and  synagogues  of  the  Jews. 
The  Talmudic  writings  of  the  Jews  speak  of 
this  practice,  and  some  look  upon  it  as  com- 
ing down  from  the  days  of  Jacob.  The 
Mishna,  which  dates  back  to  near  the  time 
of  Christ,  and  is  a  faithful  compilation  of  older 
Jewish  writings  and  oral  traditions,  and  un- 
questionably gives  the  most  accurate  and 
minute  ideas  of  the  Jewish  doctrines  and  re- 
ligious rites  accessible,  gives  testimony  to  the 
practice  of  baptizing  infants.  The  Talmud 
of  Babylon  says:  ''When  a  proselyte  is  re- 
ceived, he  must  be  circumcised:  and  when  he 
is  cured  they  baptize  him  in  the  presence  of 
two  wise  men,  saying,  'Behold,  he  is  an  Is- 
raelite in  all  things.  "  The  Jerusalem  Mishna 
says  that  "if  a  girl,  born  of  heathen  parents, 
be  made  a  proselyte  after  she  be  three  years 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  1 23 

and  a  day  old,"  then  she  is  not  to  have  such 
and  such  privileges.  The  Babylonian  Mishna 
says,  "If  she  be  made  a  proselyte  before  that 
age,  she  shall  have  the  said  privileges."  The 
Gemara,  which  is  a  Jewish  Commentary  on 
the  Mishna,  says,  "They  are  wont  to  baptize 
such  in  infancy,  upon  the  profession  of  the 
house  of  judgment,  for  this  is  for  its  good."  * 
The  Gemara  of  Babylon  also  says,  "The 
proselytes  entered  into  covenant  by  circum- 
cision, baptism,  and  sprinkling  of  blood." 

The  fact  in  question  is  not  only  established 
by  the  direct  testimony  of  the  Jews  them- 
selves, but  by  the  indirect  allusions  of  others. 
According  to  Dr.  Lardner,  Epictetus  lived 
and  wrote  A.  D.  IC9,  and  according  to  Le 
Clerc,  some  five  years  earlier;  and  being 
about  sixty  years  old  at  the  time,  his  per- 
sonal information  reached  back  to  the  times 
of  the  apostles.  In  reproving  those  who 
professed  to  be  philosophers,  and  did  not  live 
according  to  their  profession,  Epictetus  says: 
"Why  do  you  call  yourself  a  stoic?  Why 
do  you  deceive  the  multitude?  Why  do  you 
pretend  to  be  a  Greek  when  you  are  a  Jew,  a 

-  Wall. 


124  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Syrian,  an  Egyptian?  And  when  we  see  one 
wavering,  we  are  wont  to  say,  This  is  not  a 
Jew,  but  acts  one.  But  when  he  assumes 
the  sentiments  of  one  who  hath  been  bap- 
tized and  circumcised,  then  he  both  really  is 
and  is  called  a  Jew.  Thus  we,  falsifying  our 
profession,  are  Jews  in  name,  but  in  reality 
something  else."  This  allusion  to  baptism 
in  connection  with  circumcision,  and  assuming 
the  sentiments  of  the  Jews,  shows  it  to  be  a 
clear  recognition  of  the  Jewish  custom  of 
baptizing  proselytes,  and,  being  only  inci- 
dental, is  so  much  the  more  convincing.  Al- 
though it  does  not  mention  infants,  it  bears 
on  the  main  question  of  proselyte  baptism ; 
and  all  concede  that  the  notions  of  the  Jews 
respecting  "clean"  and  "unclean"  persons 
would  compel  them  to  baptize  the  children 
with  the  parents,  if  that  was  really  their  way 
of  cleansing  proselytes  from  the  defilements 
of  paganism.  Maimonides,  the  great  inter- 
preter of  Jewish  law,  who  lived  in  the  twelfth 
century,  and  wrote  without  any  bias  of  mind 
on  this  subject,  but  simply  as  an  expounder 
of  the  sacred  customs  of  his  people,  gives 
explicit    testimony.       He    says:    "Israel    was 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  12$ 

admitted  into  covenant  by  three  things; 
namely,  by  circumcision,  baptism,  and  sacri- 
fice. Baptism  was  in  the  wilderness  before 
the  giving  of  the  law."  Again:  "Abundance 
of  proselytes  were  made  in  the  days  of  David 
and  Solomon,  before  private  men;  and  the 
great  Sanhedrim  was  full  of  care  about  this 
business;  for  they  would  not  cast  them  out 
of  the  Church,  because  they  were  baptized." 
(Issure  Biah.,  c.  43.)  "Once  more,  when- 
ever any  heathen  ,  .  .  will  take  the 
yoke  of  the  law  upon  .him,  circumcision, 
baptism,  and  a  voluntary  oblation,  are  re- 
quired. .  .  .  That  was  a  common  ax- 
iom, no  man  is  a  proselyte  until  he  be  cir- 
cumcised and  baptized."  (Jevamoth,  fol.  46.) 
Maimonides  says,  further:  "They  baptize 
also  young  children.  They  baptize  a  little 
proselyte  according  to  the  judgment  of  the 
Sanhedrim ;  that  is,  as  the  gloss  renders  it,  if 
he  be  deprived  of  his  father,  and  his  mother 
brings  him  to  be  made  a  proselyte,  they  bap- 
tize him  (because  none  becomes  a  proselyte 
without  circumcision  and  baptism)  according 
to  the  judgment,  or  rite,  of  the  Sanhedrim; 
that   is,    that    three    men   be   present   at  the 


126  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

baptism,  who  are  now  instead  of  a  father  to 
him.  And  the  Gemara  a  little  after  says,  if 
with  a  proselyte  his  sons  and  his  daughters 
are  made  proselytes  also,  that  which  is  done 
by  their  father  redounds  to  their  good."  "If 
an  Israelite  find  a  Gentile  child,  or  a  Gentile 
infant,  and  baptize  him  .  .  .  behold,  he 
is  a  proselyte."     (Maim,  in  Avid.  c.  8.) 

It  is  conceded  that  the  Jews  practiced 
proselyte  baptism  immediately  after  the  apos- 
tolic day.  We  therefore  properly  inquire 
concerning  the  origin  of  the  practice  among 
them.  Were  they  in  condition  to  adopt  new 
customs,  and  especially  in  regard  to  pros- 
elyting, now  that  their  Temple  and  city  were 
in  ruins,  and  the  glory  of  their  nationality 
and  religion  was  prostrate  in  the  dust,  and 
they  the  scattered  and  peeled  people  which 
they  became  after  the  destruction  of  their 
city  by  the  Romans?  At  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  before  his  day,  the  spirit  of  proselyting 
ran  high.  To  this  the  Savior  alluded  in  his 
withering  rebuke,  Matthew  xxiii,  15:  **Woe 
unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites! 
for  ye  compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one 
proselyte;    and   when   he   is  made,  ye  make 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  12/ 

him  twofold  more  a  child  of  hell  than  your- 
selves." Their  religion  was  then  popular, 
and  they  were  in  condition  to  make  prose- 
lytes, and  did  it;  but  in  a  few  years  all  was 
changed  with  them.  In  laying  down  the 
conditions  of  discipleship,  it  is  well  known 
that  Christ  had  particular  reference  to  the 
conditions  of  receiving  proselytes  among  the 
Jews;  so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he 
adapted  to  his  use  all  that  was  capable  of 
adaptation  in  their  practices.  It  is  some- 
times averred  that  the  Jews  copied  baptism 
from  John,  who  was  a  Jew,  and  was  looked 
upon  by  the  Jews  as  a  prophet  of  their  own. 
But  they  could  not  copy  infant  baptism  from 
John,  unless  John  himself  practiced  it,  to 
admit  which  is  as  fatal  as  to  concede  the 
whole  ground.  The  fact  that  John's  baptism 
created  no  surprise  to  the  Jews,  and  elicited 
no  inquiry  as  to  its  meaning,  but  did  impress 
them  that  he  was  a  prophet,  shows  that  they 
understood  the  rite,  and  expected  a  divinely 
commissioned  teacher  to  practice  it.  Hence, 
the  Jews  went  to  John,  not  to  ask  the  mean- 
ing of  a  new  and  unknown  practice,  but  to 
ask,    **  Who  art  thouV   and  upon  being  told 


128  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

that  he  was  not  the  Christ,  nor  Elias,  nor 
that  prophet  for  whom  they  were  looking, 
they  ask,  "  IV/iy  baptizest  thou  then,  if  thou 
be  not  that  Christ,  nor  EHas,  neither  that 
prophet?"  Here  is  satisfactory  evidence  that 
the  Jews  were  acquainted  with  the  rite,  and 
that  it  was  employed  in  making  disciples.  In 
addition  to  this,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  the  Jewish  washings  were  called  baptisms 
by  themselves  and  by  the  sacred  writers;  so 
that  the  proof  is  positive  that  the  Jews  prac- 
ticed baptism  among  themselves,  and  sup- 
posed it  derived  from  the  law  of  Moses. 
Then  we  must  still  add  the  fact  that  the  law 
enjoined  the  same  practice  with  regard  to 
proselytes  that  they  observed  themselves. 
The  following  is  the  law:  "One  ordinance 
shall  be  both  for  you  of  the  congregation, 
and  also  for  the  stranger  that  sojourneth  with 
you  [proselyte],  an  ordinance  forever  in  your 
generations:  as  ye  are,  so  shall  the  stranger 
be  before  the  Lord.  One  law  and  one  man- 
ner shall  be  for  you,  and  for  the  stranger  that 
sojourneth  with  you."  (Numbers  xv,  15,  16.) 
Now,  if  in  the  days  of  Christ  the  Jews  called 
their  watery  ablutions  baptisms,  and  if  they 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  1 29 

washed  proselytes  from  pagan  defilements,  as 
they  must  before  associating  with  them,  then 
we  have  proselyte  baptism  fairly  deduced  from 
the  law.  No  matter  if  the  word  baptize  is 
not  in  the  law.  The  thing  which  the  Jews, 
in  the  natural  changes  of  their  language  from 
Hebrew  to  Greek,  and  their  mingling  with 
other  peoples  after  their  captivity  in  Babylon, 
called  baptism,  and  practiced  under  that  name, 
is  in  the  law;  and  the  law  was  the  same  with 
themselves  and  the  proselytes. 

But  not  only  did  the  Jews  not  manifest 
surprise  or  betray  ignorance  of  the  rite  when 
John  began  to  baptize,  but  they  readily  sub- 
mitted to  it.  To  my  mind,  the  readiness 
with  which  the  whole  people  of  the  Jews, 
of  all  classes  and  all  professions,  lawyers, 
soldiers,  tradesmen,  from  the  city  and  the 
country,  from  the  mountains  and  the  deserts, 
flocked  to  John's  baptism,  asking  nothing  of 
its  origin  or  history,  but  only  its  design,  is 
an  overwhelming  argument  in  favor  of  the 
proposition  that  baptism  was  familiar  to  all 
the  Jews.  This  fact,  with  the  designation  of 
Jewish  washings  under  the  law  as  ''divers 
baptisms,"  in  Hebrews  ix,  10,  and  the  des- 
9 


I30  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ignation  by  the  Savior  of  their  ceremonial 
washings  after  returning  from  market  as  bap- 
tisms, presents  the  matter  not  merely  in  the 
light  of  reasonable  inference,  but  in  the  light 
of  unquestionable  proof;  and  I  feel  justified 
in  claiming  that  the  proof  is  so  clear  and 
striking  that  it  can  not  be  put  aside  by  any 
easy  expressions  of  doubt. 

Then,  again,  as  before  remarked,  there  is 
no  disputing  the  fact  that  the  Jews  practiced 
baptism — infant  baptism,  too — in  a  short  time 
after  the  apostolic  age.  Whence  did  they  de- 
rive the  practice?  They  did  not  learn  it  from 
pagans,  for  pagans  did  nothing  of  the  kind; 
and  their  national  repugnance  to  paganism 
forbids  the  idea  that  they  copied  it  from  hea- 
then ceremonies.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  they 
copied  it  from  the  Christian  Church.  To  as- 
sume this  is  to  concede  the  practice  in  the 
Church  to  have  a  close  proximity  to  apostohc 
times.  But  the  violent  antagonism  between 
Christianity  and  Judaism  forbids  any  such  as- 
sumption. The  truth  is,  the  origin  of  the 
practice,  among  Jews  or  Christians,  is  abso- 
lutely unaccountable  except  on  the  hypoth- 
esis   here    presented.      The    opposition    have 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  131 

never  been  able  to  find  a  period  in  the  his- 
tory of  Judaism  or  Christianity  when  infant 
baptism  was  certainly  unknown  or  rejected; 
and  no  reasonable  hypothesis  has  ever  been 
devised  to  account  for  its  origin  as  an  innova- 
tion, while  the  whole  line  of  concurrent  tra- 
dition, with  Judaism  and  Christianity,  assigns 
it  an  origin  in  the  imperative  requirements  of 
the  law,  long  anterior  to  the  time  of  Christ. 
The  probabilities  in  favor  of  the  correctness 
of  this  account  of  its  origin  are  at  least  as  a 
thousand  to  one.  Indeed,  when  the  full  force 
of  the  cumulative  testimony  is  gathered  into 
one  view  and  compared  with  the  utter  bar- 
renness of  the  opposing  assumptions,  I  see 
not  how  candid  minds,  accustomed  to  balanc- 
ing probabilities  and  weighing  testimony,  can 
possibly  be  in  doubt.  All  the  conditions  are 
favorable  to  this  view,  while  enough  of  the 
factors  in  the  problem  are  substantiated  by 
testimony  to  render  the  conclusion  next  to 
inevitable. 

The  proofs  of  ancient  proselyte  baptism 
are  so  overwhelming  that  not  only  the  most 
learned  men  who  were  unprejudiced  have 
accepted   it,  as  we  have  seen,  but  even  Mr. 


132  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Booth,  a  distinguished  Baptist  writer,  has 
been  constrained  to  admit  that  ''the  children 
of  proselytes  were  probably  baptized  along 
with  their  parents."  Stackhouse  says:  ''The 
custom  of  the  Jews,  in  all  ages,  has  been  to 
receive  their  heathen  proselytes  by  baptism, 
as  well  as  by  sacrifice  and  circumcision." 
Dr.  A.  Clarke,  Calmet,  Witsius,  Wall,  and 
many  others  affirm  the  same;  and  here  I 
present,  by  way  of  conclusion  on  this  point, 
the  language  of  Dr.  Woods,  quoted  by  Dr. 
Hibbard,  not  for  the  authority  of  these  names, 
but  for  the  argument  so  clearly  presented: 

''First.  The  rabbins  unanimously  assert  that 
the  baptism  of  proselytes  had  been  practiced 
by  the  Jews  in  all  ages,  from  Moses  down 
to  the  time  they  wrote.  Now,  these  writers 
must  have  been  sensible  that  their  contempora- 
ries, both  Jews  and  Christians,  knew  whether 
such  a  practice  had  been  prevalent  or  not; 
and,  had  it  been  known  that  no  such  practice 
existed,  would  not  some  Jew  have  been  found 
bold  enough  to  contradict  such  a  groundless 
assertion  of  the  rabbins?  At  least,  would 
there  not  have  been  some  Christians,  fired 
with   the  love   of  truth,   and  jealous  for  the 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  1 33 

honor  of  a  sacred  rite  first  instituted  by  Christ, 
who  would  have  exposed  to  shame  those  who 
falsely  asserted  that  a  similar  rite  had  existed 
for  more  than  a  thousand  years?  But  neither 
of  these  things  was  done. 

''Second.  Had  not  the  Jews  been  accus- 
tomed to  baptize  proselytes  previously  to  the 
Christian  era,  it  is  extremely  improbable  that 
they  would  have  adopted  the  practice  after- 
ward ;  for  their  contempt  and  hatred  of  Chris- 
tianity exceeded  all  bounds,  and  must  have 
kept  them  at  the  greatest  possible  distance 
from  copying  a  rite  peculiar  to  Christians. 

''Third.  It  seems  to  have  been  perfectly 
consistent  and  proper  for  the  Jews  to  baptize 
proselytes;  for  their  divine  ritual  enjoined 
various  purifications  by  washing  or  baptism; 
and,  as  they  considered  all  Gentiles  to  be 
unclemi,  how  could  they  do  otherwise  than 
understand  the  divine  law  to  require  that 
when  any  of  them  should  be  proselyted  to 
the  Jewish  religion,  they  should  receive  the 
same  sign  of  purification  as  was,  in  so  many 
cases,  applied  to  themselves?" 

Now,  the  proposition  with  which  we  started 
was  that  the   apostles  would   baptize  whole 


134  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

families,  including  infants,  under  the  general 
commission,  unless  prohibited  by  positive  in- 
struction, which  prohibition  was  never  laid 
upon  them.  Dr.  Lightfoot  presents  this  point 
so  forcibly  that  I  introduce  his  words:  '*To 
the  objection,  It  is  not  commanded  to  baptize 
infants,  therefore  they  are  not  to  be  baptized, 
I  answer:  It  is  not  forbidden  to  baptize  in- 
fants, therefore  they  are  to  be  baptized.  And 
the  reason  is  plain;  for,  when  Pedobaptisin  in 
the  Jewish  Church  was  so  known,  usual,  and 
frequent  in  the  admission  of  proselytes  that 
nothing  almost  was  more  known,  usual,  and 
frequent,  there  was  no  need  to  strengthen  it 
with  any  precept,  when  baptism  was  now 
passed  into  an  evangelical  sacrament.  For 
Christ  took  baptism  into  his  hands  and  into 
evangelical  use  as  he  found  it,  this  only  added 
that  he  might  promote  it  to  a  worthier  end 
and  a  larger  use.  The  whole  nation  knew 
well  enough  that  little  children  used  to  be 
baptized;  there  was  no  need  of  a  precept 
for  that  which  had  ever  by  common  use  pre- 
vailed. .  .  .  On  the  other  hand,  therefore, 
there  was  need  of  a  plain  and  open  prohibi- 
tion that  infants  and  little  children  should  not 


ORIGIN  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  135 

be  baptized,  if  our  Lord  would  not  have  them 
baptized;  for,  since  it  was  most  common  in 
all  preceding  ages  that  little  children  should 
be  baptized,  if  Christ  had  been  minded  to 
have  that  custom  abolished,  he  would  have 
openly  forbidden  it;  therefore  his  silence  and 
the  silence  of  Scripture  in  this  matter  confirms 
Pedobaptism,  and  continues  it  to  all  ages."  To 
this  I  need  only  add  that  the  argument,  as 
now  developed,  is  not  based  on  the  silence 
of  the  Scriptures  alone,  but  on  the  "positive 
proofs  of  ancient  customs,  in  connection  with  a 
broad  command  to  disciple  all  nations,  which 
covers  the  whole  ground,  and  requires  this 
wide  application,  unless  positively  restricted. 
The  silence  of  the  Scriptures,  in  regard  to 
restrictmg  this  universal  commission,  is  the 
silence  which  speaks  with  such  eloquent  sig- 
nificance in  this  discussion. 

We  have  the  right,  in  view  of  the  facts 
now  presented,  to  claim  that  infant  baptism 
is  not  a  separate  and  distinct  rite,  requiring  a 
positive  precept  for  its  introduction  into  the 
Church  under  the  Gospel,  as  its  enemies  con- 
tinually imply.  It  is  involved  in  the  com- 
mission  to  baptize;    and   it   devolves   on   the 


136  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

opposition  to  show  either  that  infants  are  ex- 
cepted from  the  commission,  or  that  the  rite 
now,  in  its  new  relation,  involves  a  principle 
or  condition  that  renders  it  inapplicable  to 
them.  This  has  been  undertaken;  and  we 
considered  the  strength  of  the  position,  in 
noticing  the  objections,  at  the  beginning  of 
this  discourse.  That  the  undertaking  has 
failed  must  be  manifest  to  all  who  intelli- 
gently weigh  the  testimony  in  the  case. 


HISTORICAL  ARCxUMENT.  1 37 


Discourse  V. 

HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT. 

<*And  I  baptized  also  the  household  of  Stephanas." — 
I  Cor.  I,  16. 

I  PURPOSE  no  extended  argument  on  the 
subject  of  household  or  family  baptisms, 
but  remark  that  the  incidental  allusions 
thereto,  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles,  are  just 
such  as  might  be  expected,  if  the  practice 
was  common,  and  had  been  famihar  to  all 
classes  for  many  years.  The  record  on  this 
subject  is  not  such  as  it  would  have  been  if 
the  institution  had  been  entirely  new,  and 
there  had  been  a  set  purpose  to  establish  its 
validity  by  this  method  of  indicating  apos- 
tolic practice.  In  that  case,  "there  would  have 
been,  in  all  probability,  a  special  mention  of 
infants,  as  composing  in  part  the  household. 
But,  as  was  shown  in  the  preceding  discourse, 
the  practice   was   not  new;    the    Jews    were 


138  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

familiar  with  it;  they  had  practiced  family 
baptisms,  in  admitting  proselytes,  for  many 
years,  including  children  of  all  ages;  so  that, 
to  them,  the  general  statement  that  a  house- 
hold had  been  baptized  would  convey  the 
idea  that  the  children  were  included. 

In  the  three  cases  of  household  baptisms 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  there  is  no 
direct  mention  of  children;  nor  is  there  any 
thing  that  would  prevent  the  supposition  that 
there  were  children  in  some  or  all  the  fam- 
ilies. The  mention  of  a  family,  or  house- 
hold, naturally  suggests  the  idea  of  children 
of  different  ages,  yet  under  parental  control; 
for  such  is  the  normal  family,  and  such,  we 
may  say,  is  the  average  family,  in  almost 
any  country.  But  here  are  three  families, 
not  selected  for  a  purpose,  nor  specially  de- 
scribed as  being  unlike  the  average  families, 
in  which  baptism  was  administered ;  so  that 
the  allusion  to  the  fact  corresponds  exactly 
to  what  we  would  expect  to  be  said  if  the 
family  baptism  had  corresponded  in  all  re- 
spects to  the  ancient  custom  of  baptizing 
households  proselyted  to  Judaism.  The  rec- 
ord, to  say  the  least,  is  very  loose,  and  well 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  139 

calculated  to  mislead,  if  it  is  not  lawful  to 
baptize  the  average  family;  and  more  partic- 
ularly is  this  true,  when  we  take  into  account 
the  habits  and  customs  of  the  times,  when 
family  baptisms,  including  infants,  were  very 
common,  and  very  famihar  to  all  the  people. 
We  can  not,  indeed,  with  any  show  of  reason, 
affirm  positively  that  there  were  no  children 
in  either  of  these  families;  nor  can  we  doubt 
that  these  are  more  than  illustrations  of 
apostolic  practice.  These  three  instances  are 
incidentally  mentioned  in  connection  with 
Paul's  own  ministry,  not  intimating  that  they 
are  all  the  family  baptisms  that  occurred 
under  his  ministry,  nor  saying  any  thing 
about  instances  of  a  similar  kind  in  the  min- 
istry of  the  other  apostles.  The  fact  of 
family  baptisms,  in  apostolic  practice,  is  be- 
fore us,  and  under  all  the  circumstances  of 
the  case  this  fact  is  decidedly  favorable  to 
the  view  we  have  taken  of  the  interpretation 
of  the  general  commission  to  ''disciple  the 
nations,  baptizing  them,"  which  the  apostles 
would  most  probably  make,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances. ^ 

And    with    these    remarks    on    apostolic 


140  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

practice,  I  now  turn  attention  to  the  histor- 
ical argument  on  this  subject.  We  have 
given  a  rational  account  of  the  origin  of 
infant  baptism,  among  the  Jews,  prior  to  the 
Christian  era,  and  substantial  proof  of  its 
prevalence  when  Christ  began  his  ministry; 
and  we  have  found  no  word  or  act  or  hint, 
from  him  or  his  apostles,  in  opposition  to  it, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  much  that  can  not  be 
explained  except  as  favorable  to  the  practice ; 
and  we  have  seen  clearly  that  the  principles 
on  which  the  Church  is  founded,  and  the 
covenant  which  is  its  divinely  given  charter, 
all  sanction  the  recognition  of  the  little  ones 
as  of  the  covenant  and  of  the  kingdom,  so 
that  a  positive  prohibition  of  their  baptism 
was  necessary  to  prevent  it  under  the  general 
commission :  and  now,  if  we  trace  the  prac- 
tice in  the  Church  to  a  point  so  near  the 
apostolic  age  that  the  idea  of  its  spring- 
ing up  after  their  day  as  an  innovation  is 
utterly  unreasonable  and  preposterous,  we 
shall  have  so  far  gained  the  argument  that, 
unless  the  opposition  give  a  better  account 
of  its  origin  among  the  Jews,  and  show  a 
positive   prohibition   of  it   in  the  Scriptures, 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  141 

or  else  prove  its  origin  as  an  innovation  in 
the  Church,  the  only  conclusion  which  will 
accord  with  reason  is  that  infant  baptism  was 
authorized  by  Christ,  and  sanctioned  by  apos- 
tolical usage. 

I  do  not  appeal  to  tradition  or  history  as 
primary  authority  for  this  practice,  but  only 
as  collateral  evidence,  having  bearing  upon 
our  judgment  as  to  what  was  the  practice  of 
the  apostles.  Nothing  is  asked  or  based  upon 
the  opinions  of  the  post-apostolic  fathers. 
They  were  men,  weak  and  fallible  like  our- 
selves, but  they  were  honest  and  competent 
witnesses  in  a  question  of  fact,  with  which  they 
were  conversant ;  and  it  is  only  as  witnesses 
of  fact  that  I  propose  to  examine  their  testi- 
mony. Nor  can  I  more  than  indicate  the 
line  and  substance  of  the  argument. 

Infant  baptism  exists  in  the  Church,  and 
is  interwoven  with  the  history  of  the  Church 
from  the  earliest  days.  It  had  a  beginning. 
Some  one  must  have  baptized  the  first  infant. 
But  neither  the  fact,  nor  the  occasion  of  its 
origin,  can  be  found  this  side  the  days  of  the 
apostles.  Baptism  was  unquestionably  ad- 
ministered  to    infants    as    near   the   apostolic 


142  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

age  as  history  can  take  us,  and  it  was  admin- 
istered by  the  great  body  of  the  Church, 
without  murmur,  complaint,  or  debate.  For 
the  space  of  eleven  hundred  years  after  the 
birth  of  Christ,  there  was  not  a  single  society 
of  Christians,  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  that 
called  in  question  the  propriety  of  infant  bap- 
tism, on  any  ground  or  plea  whatever;  and  it 
was  not  opposed  on  the  ground  now  taken 
against  it  by  anti-Pedobaptists  for  fifteen  hun- 
dred years  after  the  Christian  era.  At  the 
present  time,  all  the  great  branches  of  the 
Church  baptize  infants — Greek,  Coptic,  Ro- 
man Catholic,  and  Protestant — except  those 
denominations  which  have,  in  modern  times, 
fallen  into  the  notion  that  immersion  is  the 
only  baptism ;  and  all  these  have  practiced  it 
from  the  beginning  of  their  history.  Go  back 
to  the  twelfth  century,  and  the  practice  was 
universal.  Go  back  to  the  sixth  century,  and 
the  same  is  true.  Go  back  to  the  third  cent- 
ury, and  there  is  not  a  syllable  of  testimony 
that  any  Church  in  the  world  refused  to  bap- 
tize infants.  Then,  if  it  was  an  innovation, 
brought  into  the  Church  without  authority 
from  the  apostles,  there  ought  to  be  at  least 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  1 43 

some  record,  somewhere,  that  would  indicate 
the  existence  of  agitation  or  debate,  or  that 
would  show  some  reason  for  its  acceptance. 
But  there  is  not  to  be  found  the  slightest 
trace  of  any  agitation,  surprise,  defense, 
apology,  or  debate,  to  show  that  any  one 
questioned  the  apostolical  authorization  of 
the  practice.  Innovations  were  introduced 
in  those  times,  but  not  without  opposition. 
The  use  and  worship  of  pictures  may  be 
taken  as  an  example.  This  innovation  gained 
a  footing,  and  made  rapid  progress  in  the 
Church;  but  it  excited  warm  debate,  and  the 
agitation  continued  for  about  eight  hundred 
years.  Then,  it  seems  reasonable  to  suppose 
that,  if  the  baptism  of  infants  started  up  as  a 
novelty,  and  spread  throughout  the  Christian 
world,  just  at  the  time  other  novelties  were 
being  so  hotly  debated,  there  ought  to  be  de- 
tected, somewhere  in  the  controversial  writings 
of  the  Fathers,  some  sort  of  allusion  to  the  fact, 
that  could  be  construed  to  show  that  somebody 
knew  that  it  was  an  innovation.  But  we  search 
all  these  in  vain  for  any  such  allusion.  On 
the  contrary,  we  find  in  those  writings  a  state 
of  facts  utterly  irreconcilable  with  any  other 


144  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

hypothesis  than  that  the  whole  Church,  at 
that  time,  fully  believed  the  practice  to  have 
descended  from  the  founders  of  Christianity, 
with  divine  sanction.  It  is  that  the  writers 
of  the  second  and  third  and  fourth  centuries 
engaged  in  earnest  theological  disputations, 
on  subjects  which  involved  the  practice  of 
infant  baptism,  and  required  the  expression 
of  opinions  respecting  its  import  and  useful- 
ness, and  the  reasons  for  its  existence;  and 
yet,  in  their  warmest  controversies,  while 
they  alluded  to  it,  and  spoke  of  its  bearing 
on  the  points  in  dispute,  not  one  of  them 
called  in  question  its  descent  from  the  apos- 
tles, or  hinted  at  a  different  origin. 

Passing  over  the  explicit  testimonies,  di- 
rect and  indirect,  of  a  later  date,  connected 
with  the  Pelagian  controversy,  I  begin  with 
the  well-known  fact  which  has  often  been 
cited  in  this  controversy,  and  proves  beyond 
question  the  universality  of  infant  baptism  in 
the  Church  at  the  period  to  which  it  belongs. 
I  refer  to  the  discussion  of  the  subject  in  the 
Council  of  Carthage.  In  the  year  of  our 
Lord  253,  sixty-six  bishops  of  the  Church 
were   assembled    in   Council,    in   the   city  of 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  1 45 

Carthage.  This  Council  represented  very 
nearly,  if  not  quite,  the  whole  Christian 
world,  and  undoubtedly  reflected  the  senti- 
ments of  the  Church  in  every  part  of  the 
earth.  One  feature  of  infant  baptism  came 
before  that  body  for  consideration,  and  was 
discussed  and  passed  upon;  but  it  was  not 
any  thing  that  implied  a  doubt  as  to  the 
divine  authority  for  the  practice,  or  of  its 
universality  in  the  Church.  The  subject  was 
brought  up  by  one  Fidus,  an  obscure  country 
bishop,  who  was  probably  not  at  the  Council, 
but  asked  of  it  a  decision  of  the  question 
whether  it  was  necessary  to  delay  the  baptism 
of  the  child  until  the  eighth  day  after  its 
birth,  making  the  law  of  circumcision  the 
rule  governing  the  time  of  baptism.*  This 
question  was  entertained  in  the  Council,  and 
a  decision  rendered,  which  decision  we  now 
have.     The  Council  answered  Fidus  thus: 

"We  read  your  letter,  dearest  brother,  in 
which  you  write  of  one  Victor,  a  priest,  etc. 
.  .  .  But  as  to  the  case  of  infants:  whereas 
you  judge  that  they  must  not  be  baptized 
within  two  or  three  days  after  they  are  born; 
and   that   the    rule   of   circumcision    is  to  be 


146  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

observed,  so  that  none  should  be  baptized  or 
sanctified  before  the  eighth  day  after  he  is 
born;  we  were  all,  in  our  assembly,  of  the 
contrary  opinion.  For,  as  for  what  you 
thought  fitting  to  be  done,  there  was  not  one 
of  your  mind ;  but  all  of  us,  on  the  contrary, 
judged  that  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God  is 
to  be  denied  to  no  person  that  is  born." 

This  is  a  remarkable  paper,  in  some  re- 
spects; and  on  the  single  point  of  the  uni- 
versality of  infant  baptism,  at  the  date  of  that 
Council,  it  is  conclusive.  Just  think  of  it. 
Here,  in  A.  D.  253,  within  one  hundred  and 
sixty  years  of  the  time  when  the  apostle 
John  was  yet  in  the  ministry,  in  so  large  an 
assembly  of  chief  ministers,  representing  so 
large  a  part  of  Christendom,  there  is  not  a 
single  voice  against  infant  baptism,  and  not 
one  in  favor  of  delaying  the  rite  till  the  child 
is  eight  days  old!  This  fact  proclaims  with 
tremendous  emphasis  the  universality  of  the 
practice,  and  the  utter  absence  of  doubt  with 
respect  to  its  authority.  If  the  practice  had 
been  of  recent  origin,  or  of  questionable  au- 
thority, or  limited  acceptance  in  the  Church, 
it  is  inconceivable  that  such  a  council,   with 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  147 

the  learned  Cyprian  as  one  of  its  members, 
could  have  rendered  such  a  decision,  with 
such  unanimity.  These  bishops  were  not 
careless  respecting  innovations,  nor  were  the 
Fathers  of  the  Church  that  preceded  them. 
Indeed,  there  seems  to  have  been  among  them 
a  peculiar  sensitiveness  concerning  the  intro- 
duction of  novelties.  They  cherished  intense 
veneration  for  the  example  of  those  who  had 
seen  the  Lord  on  earth,  and  stood  guard  over 
the  institutions  transmitted  to  them,  watching 
with  jealous  eye  every  departure  from  estab- 
lished usage;  and,  although  they  did  not 
always  succeed  in  preventing  abuses,  they 
produced  agitation,  at  least,  upon  every  vio- 
lation of  apostolic  example.  Every  innovation 
created  disturbance;  but  we  read  of  no  dis- 
turbance on  this  subject. 

The  first  opposition  to  infant  baptism,  of 
which  we  have  any  knowledge,  was  by  Ter- 
tuUian,  an  eccentric  genius,  who  flourished 
about  the  close  of  the  second  century  and 
the  beginning  of  the  third.  He  was  made 
presbyter  in  the  Church  of  Carthage,  A.  D. 
192.  He  wrote  much  that  was  useful  on 
moral  subjects,  and  in  defense  of  Christianity, 


148  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

but  was  always  distinguished  for  erratic  no- 
tions in  speculative  matters.  His  opposition 
to  infant  baptism  was  one  of  his  freaks,  and 
proves  its  existence  and  general  prevalence, 
and  the  absence  from  his  mind  of  any  settled 
convictions  hostile  to  the  rite.  So  far  from 
this,  he  recognized  it  as  based  on  the  teach- 
ings of  Christ,  and  opposed  it  only  on  pru- 
dential grounds.  He  never  objected  to  it  as 
an  innovation  upon  primitive  usage,  nor  as  a 
thing  improper  in  itself;  but,  having  imbibed 
erroneous  views  of  the  design  of  baptism,  his 
opposition  grew  out  of  his  own  wrong  ideas. 
Like  some  of  our  own  day,  Tertullian  had 
fallen  into  the  notion  that  baptism  was  a 
condition  of  pardon,  or  that,  instead  of  being 
an  emblematic  washing,  it  was  a  real  washing 
away  of  sin ;  and  he  had  reached  the  conclu- 
sion that  sins  committed  after  baptism  pos- 
sessed peculiar  heinousness,  if  they  could  be 
forgiven  at  all:  so  he  advised  that  baptism 
be  delayed  till  late  in  life.  His  object  was 
to  wash  away  the  sins  of  a  life-time  at  one 
baptism.  In  this  he  was  consistent  as  well 
as  prudent  —  only  he  did  not  consistently 
adhere  to  this  ground,  but  sometimes  urged 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  149 

baptism  without   delay.     We  will   hear  some 
of  his  reasoning  on  the  subject: 

**But  they  whose  duty  it  is  to  administer 
baptism  are  to  know  that  it  must  not  be 
given  rashly.  'Give  to  every  one  that  ask- 
eth  thee'  has  its  proper  subject,  and  relates 
to  almsgiving;  but  that  command  rather  is  to 
be  here  considered,  '  Give  not  that  which  is 
holy  unto  the  dogs,  neither  cast  your  pearls 
before  swine;'  and,  'Lay  hands  suddenly  on 
no  man,  neither  be  partakers  of  other  men's 
faults.'  Therefore,  according  to  every  one's 
condition  and  disposition,  and  also  their  age, 
the  delaying  of  baptism  is  more  profitable, 
especially  in  the  case  of  little  children;  for 
what  need  is  there  that  the  godfathers  should 
be  brought  into  danger?  Because  they  may 
either  fail  of  their  promise  by  death,  or  they 
may  be  mistaken  by  a  child's  proving  of  a 
wicked  disposition.  Our  Lord  says,  indeed, 
*Do  not  forbid  them  to  come  to  me.'  There- 
fore, let  them  come  when  they  are  grown  up ; 
let  them  come  when  they  understand,  when 
they  are  instructed  whither  it  is  that  they 
come ;  let  them  be  made  Christians  when  they 
can  know  Christ.     What  needs  their  guiltless 


150  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

age  make  such  haste  to  the  forgiveness  of 
sins?  Men  will  proceed  more  cautiously  in 
worldly  matters;  and  one  who  is  not  trusted 
with  earthly  substance  is  trusted  with  the 
heavenly.  Let  them  know  how  to  ask  for 
salvation,  that  you  may  seem  to  have  given 
to  one  that  asked.  For  no  less  cause  must 
the  unwedded  also  be  deferred,"  etc. 

The  argument  is  that  baptism  would  be 
more  profitable  if  delayed  till  the  child  could 
be  instructed  in  relation  to  the  meaning  of 
forgiveness,  and  of  salvation  through  Christ, 
and  particularly  in  regard  to  the  enormity  of 
sins  committed  after  baptism;  and  until  the 
fervor  of  passion  had  passed,  so  that  the  temp- 
tation to  sin  after  baptism  would  be  less  pow- 
erful and  more  certainly  resisted.  On  this 
same  ground,  he  advised  the  delay  of  the 
baptism  of  all  unmarried  persons;  so  that 
the  opposition  of  this  man  to  infant  baptism 
proves  it  to  have  been  the  common  practice 
of  the  Church,  and  shows  that  in  his  day  the 
idea  of  its  being  an  innovation  had  not  yet 
originated.  The  only  question  raised  in  re- 
gard to  this  testimony  is  as  to  whether  Ter- 
tullian    spoke    of    "infants"    properly,    or   of 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  151 

little  children,  who,  in  our  day,  would  be 
considered  capable  of  believing;  but  there  is 
really  no  ground  for  this  question.  The  word 
parvulos  means  infants,  as  well  as  little  chil- 
dren in  general;  but  the  ambiguity  of  the 
word  is  overcome  and  its  application  settled 
by  his  other  allusions  to  their  condition ;  for, 
observe:  i.  The  little  children  are  such  as 
can  not  ask  for  salvation.  2.  They  had  spon- 
sors or  godfathers  to  act  for  them  as  infants. 
3.  It  was  before  their  moral  dispositions  were 
developed,  and  before  they  could  know  Christ. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  he 
spoke  of  infants. 

Our  next  witness  is  the  celebrated  Greek 
father,  Origen,  who  was  perhaps  the  most 
learned  man  in  the  Church  in  his  day.  He 
was  a  native  of  Egypt,  born  A.  D.  185,  his 
father  suffering  martyrdom  when  the  son  was 
seventeen  years  old.  He  received  a  good  edu- 
cation, in  philosophy  and  rhetoric  in  particu- 
lar, which  gave  him  a  thirst  for  knowledge, 
and  inspired  him  with  energy  to  pursue  his 
studies  by  reading  and  travelings.  His  grand- 
father was  a  Christian,  and  it  is  probable  that 
his  ancestors  were  converted   in  the  apostles' 


152  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

days.  His  mind  was  capacious  and  active, 
and  he  became  learned  in  the  languages  and 
literature  of  his  times,  and  traveled  exten- 
sively, making  careful  investigation  of  what- 
ever could  interest  the  Christian  student.  The 
eccentricities  which  detracted  from  the  value 
of  his  expositions  by  no  means  interfered  with 
his  integrity  of  character  or  affected  his  relia- 
bility as  a  witness.  Origen  testifies  unequiv- 
ocally to  the  fact  of  infant  baptism  in  his 
day,  and  declares  that  the  Church  had  an 
order  or  tradition  from  the  apostles  to  give 
them  this  rite.  His  testimony  is  exceedingly 
valuable,  and  the  only  effort  made  to  destroy 
its  force  is  to  reproach  his  opinions  and  fault 
the  speculations  in  which  he  indulged  with 
reference  to  the  reasons  for  baptizing  infants; 
but  the  fact  that  Origen  attempted  to  explain 
the  reasons  for  this  rite,  and  gave  opinions  as 
to  the  necessity  of  it,  proves  that  he  found  it 
in  the  Church,  and  believed  it  to  have  come 
down  from  the  apostles.  Indeed,  the  practice 
in  his  day  was  universal,  so  far  as  is  known, 
and  unchallenged ;  and  we  have  nothing  to 
do  with  his  conjectures  as  to  the  necessity 
and   uses   of   it,   but   only  with  the  fact,   con- 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  153 

cerning  which  he  was  so  inteUigent  and  com- 
petent a  witness. 

Origen  says:  ''Besides  all  this,  let  it  be 
considered  what  is  the  reason  that,  whereas 
the  baptism  of  the  Church  is  given  for  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  infants  also  are  by  the 
usage  of  'the  Church  baptized,  when,  if  there 
were  nothing  in  infants  that  Avanted  forgive- 
ness and  mercy,  the  grace  of  baptism  would 
be  needless  to  them."  (Eighth  Homily  on 
Leviticus.)  In  speaking  of  infants  as  affected 
by  original  sin,  he  says:  ''Pro  hoc  ecclesia  ab 
apostolis  traditio7iein  siiscepit  etiam  paiinilis  bap- 
tisimtin  dari.''  "For  this  the  Church  received 
from  the  apostles  an  order  even  to  give  bap- 
tism to  infants."  (Com.  on  Epis.  to  Romans.) 
Again,  he  says:  "Having  occasion  given  in 
this  place,  I  will  mention  a  thing  that  causes 
frequent  inquiries  among  the  brethren.  In- 
fants are  baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 
Of  what  sins?  or  when  have  they  sinned? 
or  how  can  any  reason  of  the  laver  in  their 
case  hold  good,  but  according  to  the  sense 
that  we  mentioned  even  now:  'None  is  free 
from  pollution,  though  his  life  be  but  the 
length  of  a  day  upon  the  earth?'     And  it  is 


154  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

for  that  reason — because  by  the  sacrament  of 
baptism  the  pollution  of  our  birth  is  taken 
away — that  infants  are  baptized."  The  ''tra- 
ditionein'  in  the  quotation  above  means  any 
unwritten  precept,  injunction,  order,  or  com- 
mand. The  modern  use  of  tradition  scarcely 
gives  the  force  of  the  word  as  it  was  un- 
derstood then.  It  was  a  tradition  that  was 
deemed  binding,  an  ''order"  orally  delivered. 
The  Church  in  Origen's  time  received  this 
order  as  carrying  obligation  with  it,  and  en- 
tertained no  doubt  of  its  genuineness.  Of 
course,  it  was  not  a  verbal  order  that  leaped 
over  the  heads  of  the  intervening  genera- 
tions of  Christians,  making  it  the  duty  of 
the  Church  to  do  now  what  had  not  been 
done  before;  but,  as  certainly  as  Origen 
traced  the  order  or  tradition  back  to  the 
apostles,  he  traced  it  in  connection  with  the 
practice  of  the  Church  through  all  the  inter- 
vening years,  a  task  for  which  his  compe- 
tency will  not  be  questioned. 

And  now,  before  citing  testimony  that 
reaches  back  to  an  earlier  period,  I  wish 
to  remark  several  things  that  bear  upon  the 
general    argument.      It    should    be    distinctly 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  1 55 

understood  that,  in  quoting  these  post-apos- 
tolic fathers,  we  are  not  indorsing  their  opin- 
ions. We  are  not  at  all  concerned  about  their 
speculations  in  theology.  Many  of  them  had 
fallen  into  serious  error  in  doctrine,  and  in- 
dulged speculations  which  seem  to  us  child- 
ish, although  they  treated  them  with  great 
solemnity,  as  if  they  were  of  the  highest 
importance.  In  this  respect,  their  writings 
present  a  marked  contrast  to  those  of  the 
apostles,  and  impress  us  that  the  antiquity 
of  opinions  not  based  on  inspiration  is  no 
guarantee  of  their  soundness.  The  truth  is, 
that,  at  this  early  day,  the  doctrines  of  the 
apostles  were  greatly  misapprehended,  and 
serious  errors  had  crept  into  the  Church; 
and  some  of  the  men  whose  testimony  we 
rely  upon  with  great  confidence  in  the  ques- 
tion of  fact,  as  to  what  the  Church  did  and 
believed,  contributed  in  no  small  degree  to 
the  spread  and  perpetuation  of  errors  that 
have  troubled  the  Church  through  all  the 
time  that  has  since  elapsed.  Among  the 
first  corruptions  of  doctrine  that  gained  firm 
footing  in  the  Church,  and  whose  pernicious 
influence    is   felt    to   the    present   da}-,    is   one 


156  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

which  had  immediate  connection  with  the 
subject  before  us  —  the  baptism  of  infants. 
The  design  of  baptism  was  misinterpreted, 
and  its  symboHcal  character  nearly  lost.  In- 
stead of  being  understood,  as  originally,  to 
be  an  emblematical  washing  away  of  sins,  it 
was  taken  as  a  real  washing  away  of  sins; 
and,  of  course,  from  being  the  sign  of  regen- 
eration, it  was  taken  for  regeneration  itself. 
In  this  way,  the  language  of  Christ  and  the 
apostles  was  misapplied,  and  baptismal  re- 
generation well-nigh  overspread  the  Church. 
Possibly,  many  in  that  day  retained  in  their 
thoughts  of  baptism  the  inward  grace  and 
the  outward  sign,  under  the  distinctive  name 
of  the  ordinance,  as  was  so  largely  the  case 
with  the  English  divines  of  the  last  century; 
but  certain  it  is  that  in  popular  use  and  pop- 
ular thought  baptism  was  the  "new  birth," 
the  "remission  of  sins,"  the  "sanctification ;" 
and,  following  this  corruption  of  the  doctrine, 
abuses  in  connection  with  the  administration 
of  baptism  were  rapidly  multiplied.  The  or- 
dinance assumed  an  importance  never  given 
it  before,  and  a  disposition  manifested  itself 
to  gather  around  it  an  air  of  mystery,  and  to 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  157 

invest  it  with  greater  interest  by  making  its 
administration  more  pompous,  so  as  to  com- 
pete with  the  imposing  ceremonies  of  the 
pagan  temples.  The  idea  was  advanced  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  brooded  over  the  water 
and  breathed  upon  it  a  hfe-giving  energy,  so 
that  real  virtue  proceeded  therefrom;  and  no 
sooner  was  the  water  thus  invested  than  men 
reasoned  with  themselves,  that,  if  a  little  water 
was  good,  more  was  better,  and  then  effusion 
gave  place  to  immersion;  and  then  they  rea- 
soned that  the  body  should  be  washed,  and 
not  the  clothing,  and  then  the  clothing  was 
removed,  and  the  body  immersed  iyi  puris 
naturalibus.  Then  came  also  the  use  of  salt 
and  the  chrism,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  the 
blowing  in  the  ear,  and  baptismal  robes  and 
flowers,  and  all  the  abuses  of  the  rite  which 
Romanists  yet  practice,  and  for  which  they 
plead  this  high  antiquity. 

The  question  then  arises,  Did  not  infant 
baptism  spring  up  with  these  abuses?  The 
opposers  of  the  practice  assert  that  it  did; 
but  in  support  of  this  they  give  us  no  proof, 
and  rely  upon  the  prevalence  of  other  errors 
to  justify  the  assumption  that  this  was  also  an 


158  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

error.  It  is  a  question  of  fact,  fortunately, 
and  the  testimony  of  men  whose  opinions 
were  often  wild  is  good  and  reliable  in  this 
issue;  and  all  the  testimony  proves  that  the 
practice  did  not  originate  along  with  these 
abuses,  nor  in  any  wise  grow  out  of  the  errors 
of  doctrine  that  prevailed.  The  arguments 
of  all  those  early  writers  recognize  the  uni- 
versality of  the  practice,  and  show  that,  so 
far  from  regarding  it  as  an  innovation  to  be 
defended  on  the  ground  that  infants  needed 
washing  from  sin,  they  regarded  it  as  suffi- 
ciently well  established  to  become  the  ground 
of  argument  in  favor  of  doctrines  which  were 
not  so  generally  accepted.  Many  of  them 
believed  that  infant  baptism  was  intended  to 
wash  away  native  pollution ;  for  they  so  as- 
serted in  explanation  of  it  as  a  divine  ap- 
pointment ;  and  they  appealed  to  the  practice, 
and  its  divine  authorization,  in  proof  of  the 
doctrine  of  inherited  depravity.  If  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  depravity  had  been  universal 
in  the  Church,  and  undisputed,  and  if  these 
writers  had  made  appeal  to  this  doctrine  in 
justification  of  the  practice,  there  might  be 
some   reasonableness    in    the    conjecture   that 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  159 

infant  baptism  grew  out  of  this  doctrine.  But 
the  facts  are  all  the  reverse  of  this.  The 
doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  hereditary  de- 
pravity, should  not  be  classed  with  the  errors 
of  those  days.  The  speculations  of  these 
writers,  concerning  the  removal  of  native 
pollution,  do  not  invalidate  the  main  thoughts 
which  they  derived  from  the  inspired  writings. 
The  truth  is  that  the  apostolic  doctrine  of 
the  fall  and  corruption  of  human  nature  in 
Adam  was  now  disputed  by  many,  and  in 
maintaining  their  ground,  if  there  had  been 
any  reason  for  it,  those  who  denied  depravity 
would  have  called  in  question  the  practice  of 
baptizing  infants,  for  it  was  plainly  to  their 
interest  in  the  discussion  to  do  so;  but  not 
one  of  them  did  it.  They  had  the  fact 
pressed  upon  their  attention,  as  an  argument 
against  them;  and  there  is  not  the  slightest 
doubt  that  they  would  have  denied  the  au- 
thority for  the  practice,  if  they  could  have 
found  any  reason  for  the  denial.  They  were 
not  lacking  in  courage  or  shrewdness,  and 
nothing  could  have  restrained  them  from  re- 
torting upon  their  antagonists  that  the  prac- 
tice   they    alleged    in    justification    of    their 


l60  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

doctrine  was  itself  an  innovation,  if  they  could 
have  persuaded  themselves  that  it  was  lacking 
in  the  essential  of  divine  authority.  We  do 
not,  therefore,  argue  the  universality  of  this 
practice  from  the  mere  absence  of  recorded 
opposition;  but  we  have  the  stronger  and 
more  positive  ground  for  our  faith,  in  the 
fact  that  the  subject  was  involved  in  such 
disputations  as  would  have  brought  out  op- 
position naturally  and  logically ;  that  one 
party  appealed  to  it  as  an  argument  in  favor 
of  a  doctrine  which  the  other  party  denied ; 
and  that  all  parties  admitted  the  practice,  and 
no  one  questioned  the  authority  for  it.  With 
this  condition  of  things,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that,  at  that  early  day,  the  whole 
Church  believed  it  to  have  come  down  from 
the  apostles. 

Then,  the  only  question  remaining  has  ref- 
erence to  the  opportunities  which  the  writers 
of  those  times  had  for  knowing  whence  the 
practice  came,  and  the  possibility  of  their 
being  deceived.  In  other  words.  Could  this 
practice  have  been  brought  into  the  Church 
as  an  innovation,  after  the  death  of  the  apos- 
tles,  and  obtain    such    universal    acceptance, 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  l6l 

without  disturbance  or  dispute,  that  the  most 
learned  men  of  the  times — men  of  intelH- 
gence  sufficient  to  cope  with  the  keenest 
skepticism — could  not  trace  its  origin,  and  did 
not  suspect  its  want  of  apostolical  authority? 
It  is  useless,  it  seems  to  me,  to  claim  that 
such  men  as  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Origen, 
Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Jerome,  Pelagius,  Chry- 
sostom,  Augustine,  and  the  Avhole  body  of 
Christian  Fathers,  were  lacking  in  intelligence 
or  mental  activity,  so  as  to  be  liable  to  be 
imposed  upon  in  a  matter  of  this  kind.  That 
some  of  them  erred  in  doctrine,  as  good  and 
wise  men  do  yet,  is  not  to  be  disputed.  We 
claim  nothing  on  the  authority  of  their  opin- 
ions. It  is  one  of  the  mistakes  of  Rome  to 
attach  unbecoming  importance  to  what  these 
men  thought  and  said  in  the  field  of  polemic 
and  speculative  divinity.  The  only  claim  we 
make  in  their  behalf  is,  that  they  were  intel- 
ligent and  honest  men,  and  reliable  witnesses 
in  any  question  of  fact  with  which  they  were 
conversant.  Their  speculations  did  not  de- 
stroy their  integrity,  and  can  not  invalidate 
their  testimony  upon  the  question  before  us. 
We  accept  their  testimony  as  to  what  the 
II 


1 62  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Church  did  and  believed  in  their  day,  and 
leave  their  speculations  to  stand  or  fall  upon 
their  own  merits. 

I  now  direct  attention  to  the  testimony  of 
earlier  witnesses,  tracing  infant  baptism  back 
to  the  very  age  of  the  apostles.  Irenaeus, 
who  was  educated  in  Asia,  and  was  afterward 
Bishop  of  Lyons,  gives  testimony  of  singular 
significance.  He  was  born  about  the  time 
that  the  apostle  John  died,  and  lived  to  be  an 
old  man,  occupying  his  office  A.  D.  178,  so 
that  his  writings  date  back  to  within  seventy 
years  of  the  death  of  the  last  of  the  apostles. 
His  facilities  were  excellent  in  early  life  for 
learning  the  opinions  and  practices  of  the 
apostles;  for  he  was  in  the  habit  of  hearing 
Polycarp,  the  friend  and  companion  of  John, 
who  was  by  that  apostle  appointed  in  charge 
of  the  Church  in  Smyrna.  Irenaeus  gives  the 
following  account  of  his  early  friend  and 
teacher,  Polycarp:  ''I  remember  the  things 
that  were  done  then  better  than  I  do  those 
of  later  times,  so  that  I  could  describe  the 
place  where  he  sat,  and  his  going  out  and 
coming  in;  his  manner  of  life,  his  features, 
his   discourse   to   the   people   concerning   the 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  1 63 

conversation  he  had  had  with  John  and  others 
that  had  seen  the  Lord:  how  he  rehearsed 
their  discourses,  and  what  he  had  heard  them 
that  were  eye-witnesses  of  the  Word  of  Life 
say  of  our  Lord,  and  of  his  miracles  and  doc- 
trine: all  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures." 

I  cite  this  to  show  the  proximity  of  this 
witness  to  the  apostles;  and  also  to  show  the 
reverent  feelings  with  which  he  cherished  the 
memory  of  his  friend,  who  had  seen  and  con- 
versed with  those  who  had  seen  Christ  on 
earth.  It  indicates  clearly  that  he  had  it  in 
his  power  to  know  whether  infant  baptism 
had  come  in  as  an  innovation  or  not. 

Irenaeus,  speaking  of  Christ,  says:  *'For 
he  came  to  save  all  persons  by  himself;  all, 
I  say,  who  by  him  are  regenerated  to  God; 
infants,  and  little  ones,  and  youth,  and  elder 
persons."  The  pertinency  and  force  of  this 
language  is  in  the  use  of  the  word  "regen- 
erate." It  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  that 
all  these  early  writers  spoke  of  ''regenera- 
tion" in  such  a  way  as  to  include  baptism. 
If  they  did  not  use  regeneration  as  exactly 
synonymous  with  baptism,  they  made  it  in- 
clude  the   outward   rite;    and   there   is  more 


164  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

probability  that  in  their  conceptions  of  the 
thing  they  excluded  the  inward  grace  than 
that  they  excluded  the  external  ceremony. 
Baptism  was  so  fixed  in  their  minds  as  re- 
generation, that  they  spoke  of  regeneration 
as  baptism.  To  what  extent  they  still  im- 
plied and  understood  the  inward  grace,  as 
connected  with  the  rite,  we  can  not  deter- 
mine; but  it  is  certain  that  when  this  "Fa- 
ther" spoke  of  ''infants,"  ** little  ones," 
"youths,"  and  "elder  persons,"  as  being 
** regenerated  to  God,"  he  meant  that  all 
these  classes  were  baptized.  His  additional 
remark,  that  Christ  sanctified  all  these  stages 
of  human  life  by  himself  passing  through 
them,  by  no  means  interferes  with  the  sense 
of  the  word  "regenerate,"  then  so  fully  es- 
tablished by  usage.  We  see  from  his  own 
words,  in  another  place,  that  he  used  "regen- 
erate" to  include  baptism.  He  says:  "And 
again,  when  he  gAve  his  disciples  the  com- 
mission of  regenerating  unto  God,  he  said 
unto  them,  'Go  and  teach  all  nations,  bap- 
tizing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  where 
the  commission  of  regenerating  plainly  means 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  165 

the   commission   of  baptizing."     (See  Wall's 
"Hist.  Infant  Baptism.") 

This  proves  beyond  doubt  that  Irenaeus 
spoke  of  infant  baptism;  and  I  believe  thab 
no  historian  has  doubted  the  fact.  Neander 
admits  the  fact,  though  he  gathers  from 
Irenaeus's  words  that  he  rather  justified  it  by' 
principles  drawn  from  a  profound  Christian 
consciousness  than  from  the  authority  of  the 
apostles;  but  a  little  reflection  on  his  refer- 
ence to  the  commission  will  show  that  he 
understood  that  commission,  to  ''regenerate 
to  God  by  baptism,"  to  apply  to  all  the 
classes  named.  We  are  not  concerned  about 
his  method  of  justifying  it,  by  appeals  to 
Christian  consciousness  or  otherwise ;  it  is 
the  fact  that  the  practice  prevailed  in  his  day, 
and  without  opposition,  that  is  most  pertinent 
to  our  argument.  This  is  the  pregnant  fact, 
that  this  Christian  Father,  who  lived  in  the 
lingering  light  of  the  apostolic  age,  whose  ear 
caught  the  echo  of  apostolic  preaching,  and 
who  cherished  so  affectionately  the  memory 
of  one  who  had  been  the  contemporary  and 
friend  of  the  beloved  disciple,  and  others  who 
had   seen   the    Lord — that    this    man,    whose 


1 66  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

early  training  was  by  those  who  clasped 
hands  with  the  apostles,  believed  in  infant 
baptism,  and  believed  it  enjoined  in  the  com- 
mission to  ''disciple  the  nations,  baptizing 
them."  That  such  testimony  would  pass  un- 
challenged could  not  be  expected.  It  could 
not  be  otherwise  than  that  it  should  be  sub- 
jected to  the  most  rigid  scrutiny,  and  much 
labor  has  been  bestowed  upon  it,  with  a  view 
to  weaken  its  force;  but  the  result  of  the 
most  learned  criticism  is  to  leave  it  just  where 
I  have  placed  it — not  as  justifying  the  doc- 
trine of  ''baptismal  regeneration,"  but  as 
vindicating  the  position  that  Irenaeus  so  used 
the  phrase,  "regenerated  unto  God,"  as  to 
include  baptism,  and  thereby  recognize  the 
baptism  of  "infants,  Httle  ones,  youths,  and 
elder  persons."  There  is  absolutely  no  other 
sense  in  which,  at  his  day,  one  could  speak 
of  regenerating  infants  unto  God. 

I  submit  the  testimony  of  one  more  wit- 
ness. Justin  Martyr  was  a  learned  Samaritan, 
converted  about  A.  D.  133,  and  wrote  about 
forty  years  after  the  apostle  John  died.  He 
was  doubtless  born  and  educated  while  that 
apostle  was  yet  on  earth.      He  probably  con- 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  167 

versed  with  many  who  had  distinct  recollec- 
tion of  apostolic  times;  so  that  he  too  stood 
in  the  twilight  of  the  day  which  was  made 
glorious  by  the  inspiration  and  zeal  of  men 
who  had  seen  and  heard  the  Lord.  Justin 
says,  ' '  Many  persons  among  us,  of  sixty  and 
seventy  years  old,  of  both  sexes,  who  were 
discipled  to  Christ  in  their  childhood,  do  con- 
tinue uncorrupted."  The  allusion  to  baptism 
is  in  the  phrase,  ** discipled  to  Christ."  The 
word  "discipled"  is  the  same  that  occurs  in 
the  commission  to  "disciple  the  nations, 
baptizing  them."  It  is  mat/teteusate,  and 
means  to  make  disciples,  though  we  have  it 
rendered  teach.  The  manner  of  making  dis- 
ciples is  by  baptizing  them.  This  is  the 
meaning  attached  to  the  word  by  the  apos- 
tles, and  by  all  the  post-apostolic  Fathers. 
It  is  in  the  strictest  harmony  with  this  inter- 
pretation of  the  commission,  and  this  use  of 
matheteuo,  that  Justin  speaks  of  persons  being 
"discipled  to  Christ,"  meaning,  by  baptism. 
In  the  light  of  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  it  is 
not  possible  to  understand  the  words  of  Justin 
in  any  other  sense.  It  is  certain  that  persons 
could   not  be   "discipled"   without   baptism; 


1 68  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

hence,  when  he  says  they  were  ''discipled  to 
Christ,"  the  testimony  is  just  as  positive  as 
if  he  had  said  they  were  baptized  in  child- 
hood. And  if  this  is  correct,  as  it  unques- 
tionably is,  then  Justin  testifies  that  many 
were  yet  Hving-,  sixty  and  seventy  years  old, 
of  both  sexes,  who  were  discipled  by  being 
baptized  in  childhood ;  and,  as  he  wrote  only 
about  forty  years  after  the  death  of  John, 
these  persons  yet  living  must  have  been  bap- 
tized in  childhood,  at  least  twenty  years  be- 
fore John,  the  last  of  the  apostles,  left  the 
world.  Here,  then,  unless  this  chain  can  be 
broken,  is  a  record  of  infant  baptism  in  the 
Church,  that  reaches  back  to  apostolic  times. 
And  can  this  chain  be  broken?  I  verily  be- 
lieve not.  It  has  been  hammered  severely; 
but  up  to  this  time  it  has  withstood  the  stal- 
Avart  blows  of  the  giants  of  criticism,  and 
remains  complete,  without  a  missing  link ! 

The  word  for  child — -paidion — is  the  same 
that  is  used  in  the  Scriptures  of  little  chil- 
dren, too  young  to  act  for  themselves,  and 
occurs  sometimes  interchangeably  with  bre- 
pkos — infants.  Its  real  meaning  is  as  given, 
little   children,   too   young   to   act   for  them- 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  169 

selves;    and  therefore  it  is  properly  used  of 
infants. 

But  the  notions  of  Justin  respecting  bap- 
tism are  seen  in  the  fact  that  he  makes  it 
correspond  with  circumcision.  He  calls  it 
the  "spiritual  circumcision."  He  says:  *'We 
also,  who  by  him  have  had  access  to  God, 
have  not  received  the  carnal  circumcision, 
but  the  spiritual  circumcision,  which  Enoch, 
and  those  like  him,  observed.  And  we  have 
received  it  by  baptism,  by  the  mercy  of  God, 
because  we  were  sinners;  and  it  is  enjoined 
upon  all  persons  to  receive  it  in  the  same 
way."  Now,  the  pertinency  of  this  is  seen, 
when  it  is  considered  that  Justin  was  con- 
ducting a  dialogue  with  Trypho,  a  Jew,  and 
was  justifying  the  Christians  in  neglecting  to 
circumcise  their  children.  This  neglect  was 
a  grievous  fault,  in  the  estimation  of  the 
Jew;  and  Justin  shows  that  baptism  is  the 
"spiritual  circumcision,"  and  answers  in  the 
place  of  the  "carnal  circumcision;"  but  hoAV 
this  could  meet  the  objection  of  the  Jew,  if 
the  spiritual  circumcision  was  disallowed  to 
infants,  it  is  impossible  to  see.  In  blending 
baptism  and  circumcision,  as  to  their  spiritual 


170  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

import,  so  as  to  show  the  identity  of  their 
meaning,  Justin  was  but  following  the  exam- 
ple of  Paul,  and  probably  had  his  words  in 
mind.  Upon  the  whole,  the  proof  that  Justin 
recognized  infant  baptism,  both  in  his  refer- 
ence to  *' spiritual  circumcision,"  and  in  the 
phrase,  ''discipled  to  Christ  in  childhood," 
is  too  clear  to  admit  of  the  slightest  im- 
peachment. 

Here,  then,  we  close  the  argument.  By 
incontestable  proof,  we  trace  infant  baptism  to 
the  times  when  men  lived  who  had  seen  the 
apostles.  We  find  no  period  in  all  the  his- 
tory of  the  Church  when  it  did  not  exist. 
The  wisest  and  most  learned  men  of  those 
earliest  days  affirm  that  it  came  from  the 
apostles.  The  apostolic  record  of  household 
baptisms  favors  the  supposition  that  it  did. 
In  a  word,  the  chain  of  testimony,  from 
Scripture  and  history,  is  too  strong  to  be 
broken,  since  nothing  better  than  conjecture 
can  be  brought  against  it.  Let  the  different 
lines  of  argument  now  submitted,  each  meas- 
surably  independent  of  the  other,  all  be 
brought  together,  and  let  their  separate  rays 
be   concentrated   into  a  focus,   and   the  light 


HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  171 

of  truth  will  speedily  drive  away  the  "shad- 
ows, clouds,  and  darkness,"  under  which  so 
many  grope,  while  honestly  seeking  the  path 
of  duty  in  relation  to  this  divine  appointment. 


1/2  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


Discourse  VI. 

THE  NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE. 
"Of  the  doctrine  of  baptisms." — Heb.  vi,  2. 

IN  considering  the  mode  of  baptism,  the 
first  thing  necessary  is  to  bring  before 
our  minds  the  exact  issue  to  be  discussed. 
There  can  be  no  really  profitable  investigation 
of  the  subject  without  this. 

It  is  known  that,  as  a  Church,  we  prac- 
tice three  modes  of  administering  the  rite; 
namely,  pouring,  sprinkling,  and  immersion. 
Why,  then,  should  we  discuss  the  question 
of  mode  at  all,  seeing  that  we  acknowledge 
the  validity  of  baptism  administered  by  either 
or  all  the  modes?  Upon  this  subject,  as  well 
as  that  of  the  subjects  of  baptism,  we  stand 
on  the  defensive.  Our  practice  is  called  in 
question  by  those  who  are  more  exclusive 
than  ourselves,  and  we  find  ourselves  very  bit- 
terly assailed  for  our  liberality.     Our  baptisms 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.        1 73 

by  pouring-  and  sprinkling  are  denounced  as 
no  baptisms,  and  our  resort  to  immersion  is 
ridiculed  as  a  weakness  and  a  concession. 
Of  course,  we  do  not  accept  the  representa- 
tions of  other  parties  in  matters  of  this  kind, 
and  propose  to  show  that  our  whole  practice 
is  defensible  on  the  solid  ground  of  Scripture, 
and  that  our  acceptance  of  immersion  as  an 
allowable  mode  of  baptism  is  consistent  with 
all  our  teachings,  and  implies  nothing  of  in- 
differentism  or  concession.  We  make  no  war 
on  the  validity  of  baptism  by  immersion;  but 
against  the  assumption  that  immersion  is  defi- 
nitely prescribed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  is  the 
only  baptism,  we  enter  our  solemn  protest. 

It  is  evident  that  very  much,  in  this  con- 
troversy, depends  on  the  word  baptize ;  and 
an  investigation  of  the  nature  and  meaning 
of  that  word  is  the  duty  of  this  hour.  There 
is  much  that  might  be  said  in  regard  to  the 
origin,  use,  and  meaning  of  this  word,  in 
which  all  parties  substantially  agree;  but  all 
that  may  be  rightfully  eliminated  from  our 
present  discussion,  as  we  have  time  and  occa- 
sion only  to  deal  with  such  aspects  as  are  nec- 
essary to  a  right  conclusion.      I  must  remark, 


174  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

however,  that  the  issue  is  not  as  our  oppo- 
nents usually  put  it.  It  is  not  unusual  with 
them  to  insist  that  baptize  must  mean  im- 
merse or  pour  or  sprinkle,  and  to  proceed  on 
the  supposition  that,  in  advocating  effusion, 
we  are  aiming  to  prove  that  it  does  mean 
specifically  pour  or  sprinkle.  This  represen- 
tation of  the  case  is  extremely  incorrect,  and 
fails  utterly  to  indicate  our  position;  and,  of 
course,  it  can  not  possibly  present  the  real 
issue.  We  do  not  believe  that  the  word  in 
question  means  specifically  pour  or  sprinkle, 
any  more  than  we  believe  it  means  immerse. 
We  hold  that  the  Greek  verb  baptizo,  and 
the  nouns  baptismos  and  baptisma,  are  used  in 
too  broad  a  sense,  in  the  Scriptures,  to  be 
translated  by  any  specific  terms  in  our  lan- 
guage that  simply  express  mode.  Our  trans- 
lators, in  giving  us  the  standard  version,  did 
exactly  right  in  transferring  tliese  words  to 
our  language,  Avith  suitable  terminations  to 
make  them  legitimate  English  words.  They 
found  in  our  language  no  equivalents  for 
them,  in  their  judgment,  and  therefore  did 
the  only  right  thing;  and  we  most  cordially 
approve  their  action.     The  only  thing  to  be 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.        1 75 

regretted  is  that  they  did  not  invariably 
transfer  the  words,  as  they  always  did  when 
allusion  was  had  to  the  ordinance  of  the 
Church.  We  do  not  believe  baptizo  ought 
to  be  translated  pour  or  sprinkle  or  immerse 
in  any  instance,  as  it  is  not;  and  the  few 
places  where  it  is  translated  **wash"  would 
be  better  presented  to  the  English  reader  if 
no  translation  had  been  attempted.  As  a 
class,  effusionists  are  well  contented  with  the 
authorized  version,  and  have  never  sought  a 
new  translation  on  sectarian  grounds. 

The  real  question  is,  not  as  to  whether 
baptizo  means  immerse  or  pour  or  sprinkle, 
but  whether  it  is  a  specific  or  a  generic  term. 
We  must  ascertain  this  point  before  we  can 
determine  whether  it  expresses  the  manner 
of  using  the  water  in  administering  the  rite, 
or  simply  expresses  the  act  of  administration, 
without  determining  the  mode.  If  I  show 
that  the  word  is  generic — that  it  relates  to 
the  administration  of  the  ordinance  by  the 
use  of  water,  without  prescribing  the  mode — 
I  shall  have  gained  my  point.  My  position 
is  that  the  mode  is  to  be  learned  outside  of 
the   word   that   expresses   the   administration. 


1/6  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

and  outside  of  the  corresponding  noun  which 
is  the  name  of  the  ordinance.  We  must  look 
at  the  practices  which  gave  rise  to  the  use 
of  this  word,  to  the  surroundings  of  the  par- 
ties administering  the  rite,  and  to  its  rehg- 
ious  meaning  and  symbohc  import,  and  from 
these  sources  gather  hght  as  to  the  manner 
of  baptizing. 

With  these  general  remarks,  I  come  directly 
to  the  question,  Is  baptize  a  specific  or  a  gen- 
eric term?  What  is  its  real  character?  Does 
it,  or  does  it  not,  definitely  express  the  mode 
of  using  the  water?  I  take  the  ground  that 
it  is  generic,  and,  of  course,  must  prove  it. 
Mr.  Carson,  who  is  perhaps  the  ablest  critic 
who  has  written  on  this  subject  in  the  inter- 
est of  immersionism,  and  is  generally  rec- 
ognized as  a  standard  authority  in  all  the 
Churches  where  exclusive  immersion  prevails, 
tells  us  that  the  word  is  **  strictly  univocal." 
I  mention  this  author  because  of  his  high 
standing  and  acknowledged  ability,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  having  before  us  an  authorita- 
tive representation  of  the  other  side.  Now, 
a  word  that  is  "strictly  univocal"  is  a  word 
of  one  meaning;   and  it  ought  to  be  so  well 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.        177 

defined  that  there  could  be  no  possible 
ground  for  controversy  concerning  it.  Its 
first  meaning  is  its  last  and  only  mean- 
ing, and  all  discussion  about  primary  and 
secondary  meanings  is  excluded.  But,  not- 
withstanding the  learned  criticisms  of  the 
distinguished  writer  named,  and  his  vigorous 
grappling  with  the  stubborn  facts  which  he 
encountered,  my  best  judgment  compels  me 
to  hold  that,  if  this  word  is  ''strictly  uni- 
vocal,"  the  lexicons,  which  give  it  several 
meanings,  are  wrong,  the  Bible  use  is  wrong, 
and  classic  use  is  wrong;  for,  in  all  these, 
there  are  different  meanings  attached  to  it. 
A  geiiei'ic  word  is  one  which  comprehends  a 
genus  or  kind;  and  there  are  many  generic 
words  in  common  use,  whose  character,  in 
this  respect,  we  never  stop  to  consider.  I 
say,  for  instance,  that  I  recently  rode  from 
New  York  to  Philadelphia.  I  convey  a  very 
definite  idea  in  reference  to  the  fact  of  pass- 
ing from  one  city  to  another;  and  yet  the 
word  rode  is  generic.  It  tells  the  general 
fact,  but  tells  nothing  as  to  the  mode  of  rid- 
ing. I  might  have  ridden  in  the  cars  or  on 
a  boat  or  in  a  buggy  or  on  horseback.  In 
12 


1/8  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

either  case,  the  word  properly  expresses  the 
idea  intended.  The  remark  is  made  in  your 
hearing,  *'A  man  was  killed  yesterday."  A 
very  serious  fact  is  thus  clearly  stated;  but 
the  manner  of  the  killing  is  not  indicated. 
He  might  have  been  shot  or  stabbed  or 
drowned  or  poisoned;  and,  in  either  case, 
he  was  killed.  This,  then,  is  a  generic  word, 
which  expresses  a  thing  done,  without  ex- 
pressing the  way  of  doing  it.  Wet  is  a  gen- 
eric word,  and  so  is  w^.y/^,  because  the  wetting 
and  the  washing  can  be  done  in  different  ways. 
The  specific  term  that  would  express  the  mode 
of  the  action  may  be  included  or  implied  in 
the  generic;  but  it  is  not  and  can  not  be  an 
equivalent  for  it,  because  it  does  not  exhaust 
its  meaning.  The  generic  baptize  may  imply 
the  specific  pour,  sprinkle,  or  immerse;  but 
neither  of  these  words,  nor  all  of  them  to- 
gether, can  be  taken  as  an  equivalent  for  bap- 
tize, for  the  reason  that  they  do  not  exhaust 
the  meaning  of  baptize.  There  is  still  a  relig- 
ious idea,  a  consecration  to  a  holy  service, 
that  no  specific  term  expressive  of  mode  can 
convey;  and,  on  this  account,  we  would  not 
have  the  word  murdered  by  any  partial  trans- 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.        1 79 

lation.  According  to  the  assumption  of  im- 
mersionists,  the  word  immerse  is  the  equiva- 
lent of  baptize;  but,  if  so,  the  naked  fact  of 
sinking  under  water  exhausts  its  meaning, 
and  whatever  besides  this  abstract  idea  is 
necessary  to  the  ordinance  is  not  expressed, 
and  can  not  be  expressed,  by  the  word  baptize. 
But  how  shall  we  determine  the  character 
and  meaning  of  the  word  before  us?  To 
what  shall  we  appeal  as  authority  in  the  case  ? 
To  the  lexicons,  of  course,  says  one.  Well, 
lexicons  are  useful;  but  are  they  ultimate 
authority?  Let  us  think  a  little.  I  would 
not  ignore  the  judgment  of  learned  men,  and 
therefore  inquire  what  some  of  high  repute 
have  said  touching  the  value  of  lexicons  in 
this  discussion.  The  late  Alexander  Camp- 
bell, whose  learning  has  never  been  ques- 
tioned, says,  ''No  learned  man  will  ever  rest 
his  faith  upon  dictionaries."  Again,  he  says: 
*'I  say  the  dictionaries  are  sometimes  wrong, 
and  that  I  can  prove.  So  say  all  philologists 
and  critics  of  eminence.  The  lexicons  fre- 
quently contradict  each  other  on  various 
points."  (Debate  with  Rice,  pp.  96,  106.) 
Mr.    Carson    takes    similar    ground.      In    his 


l8o  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

chapter  on  the  burden  of  proof,  in  speaking 
of  a  definition  which  Dr.  Johnson  gives  of 
the  word  ''paradox,"  Mr.  Carson  says,  '*It 
is  given  merely  on  the  authority  of  etymol- 
ogy, which  is  no  authority  at  all.  Mere  con- 
trariety to  the  prevailing  opinion  is  not  a 
paradox,  in  the  sense  of  the  English  lan- 
guage." Here,  then,  is  proof  of  the  need  of 
caution  in  using  lexicons  as  authority.  If 
Dr.  Johnson  was  betrayed  into  an  inaccuracy 
by  simply  folloAving  the  light  of  etymology, 
what  may  we  not  fear  in  following  lexicog- 
raphers of  dead  or  foreign  languages?  The 
truth  is,  the  lexicons  are  but  the  echo  of 
usage  as  understood  and  interpreted  by  the 
lexicographer.  Our  appeal  ought,  therefore, 
to  be  not  to  the  lexicons,  but  to  usage. 
Nothing  but  examples  from  actual  usage  can 
be  ultimate  authority  in  determining  the 
meaning  of  words  in  any  language.  And  I 
am  happy  in  being  sustained  in  this  position 
by  the  distinguished  immersionist  critic,  Mr. 
Carson.  He  says:  ''Language  has  no  logical 
truth  for  its  standard ;  and  therefore  against 
this  it  can  not  trespass.  Use  is  the  sole 
arbiter  of  language;    and  whatever  is  agree- 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.        l8l 

able  to  this  authority  stands  justified  beyond 
impeachment."  Then,  passing  the  lexicons, 
not  as  useless,  but  as  of  only  secondary  im- 
portance, I  appeal  to  usage — to  the  Bible  use 
of  this  word. 

The  word  baptizo  is  derived  from  bapto ; 
and  it  is  not  claimed  by  any  one  that  there 
is  any  difference  between  the  two  words,  so 
far  as  mode  is  concerned.  We  shall,  there- 
fore, be  in  the  direct  line  of  the  argument 
while  considering  passages  containing  either 
word.  In  citing  passages  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, the  Septuagint  is  referred  to,  which 
is  just  as  valuable  as  the  New  Testament,  so 
far  as  illustrating  the  use  of  words  is  con- 
cerned. I  begin  by  giving  a  few  quotations 
where  bapto  occurs  with  such  surroundings 
that  it  can  not  possibly  mean  immerse.  I 
refer  to  Leviticus  xiv,  2-7:  "This  shall  be 
the  law  of  the  leper  in  the  day  of  his  cleans- 
ing: He  shall  be  brought  unto  the  priest,  and 
the  priest  shall  go  forth  out  of  the  camp ;  and 
the  priest  shall  look,  and,  behold,  if  the 
plague  of  leprosy  be  healed  in  the  leper,  then 
shall  the  priest  command  to  take  for  him  that 
is  to  be  cleansed  two  birds   alive   and   clean. 


1 82  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

a^id  cedar  wood,  and  scarlet,  and  hyssop;  and 
the  priest  shall  command  that  one  of  the 
birds  be  killed  in  an  earthen  vessel  over  run- 
ning water.  As  for  the  living  bird,  he  shall 
take  it,  and  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  scarlet, 
and  the  hyssop,  and  shall  dip  them  and  the 
living  bird  in  the  blood  of  the  bird  that  was 
killed  over  the  running  water:  and  he  shall 
sprinkle  upon  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  from 
the  leprosy  seven  times,  and  shall  pronounce 
him  clean,  and  shall  let  the  living  bird  loose 
into  the  open  field."  In  this  passage,  bapto 
is  rendered  dip ;  but  it  can  not  be  understood 
in  the  sense  of  immerse.  Nor  would  it  do 
to  translate  it  immerse ;  for  the  living  bird, 
the  cedar  wood,  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop, 
could  not  all  be  immersed  in  the  blood  of 
the  bird  that  was  killed.  There  was  a  phys- 
ical impossibility  in  the  way.  But  the  im- 
mersionist  replies  that  the  blood  of  the  slain 
bird  was  caught  in  a  vessel  containing  run- 
ning or  living  water,  in  which  mixture  the 
living  bird  and  the  other  things  were  im- 
mersed. The  answer  is,  the  "mixture"  is 
all  in  the  ideas  of  the  critic;  for  there  is  no 
mixture  described  in  the  passage.      The  bird 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.         183 

was  to  be  killed  in  a  vessel  ovei'  running  water; 
but  that  the  water  was  in  the  vessel,  so  as  to 
mix  with  the  blood,  is  the  purest  conjecture. 
The  dipping  was  for  the  purpose  of  smearing, 
preparatory  to  sprinkling  upon  the  person  to 
be  cleansed.  This  meaning  of  the  word  is 
justified  here,  and  in  man}^  other  places, 
both  in  sacred  and  classical  writings,  as  we 
shall  see. 

The  story  of  the  strange  punishment  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  is  familiar  to  Bible  readers. 
I  read  Daniel  iv,  33:  "The  same  hour  was 
the  thing  fulfilled  upon  Nebuchadnezzar:  and 
he  was  driven  from  men,  and  did  eat  grass  as 
oxen,  and  his  body  was  wet  with  the  dew  of 
heaven,  till  his  hairs  were  grown  like  eagles' 
feathers,  and  his  nails  like  birds'  claws."  The 
word  translated  "wet"  is  bapto,  and  bears 
the  general  sense  of  moisten,  but  does  not 
and  can  not  admit  of  the  idea  of  an  immer- 
sion. The  wetting  was  not  effected  by  dip- 
ping or  plunging.  The  dew  of  heaven  fell 
gently,  and  wet  his  body.  This  is  all.  No 
learning  or  ingenuity  can  extort  from  bapto 
the  meaning  of  immerse,  in  this  instance. 
Critics  in  that  interest  have   bestowed  a  vast 


1 84  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

amount  of  labor  on  this  passage,  trying  to 
remove  it  out  of  their  way;  but  there  it 
stands,  an  everlasting  contradiction  to  the 
assertion  that  bapto  is  a  specific  word,  mean- 
ing only  immerse. 

In  Revelation  xix,  13,  we  find  bapto  in  a 
highly  figurative  description  of  the  Son  of 
God,  as  a  conquering  warrior,  triumphing 
over  his  enemies,  clothed  in  a  ''vesture 
dipped  {bebaminenori)  in  blood."  The  imagery 
is  evidently  taken  from  the  prophet  Isaiah's 
description  of  the  same  personage,  in  the 
same  character.  I  read  the  prophet's  de- 
scription, Isaiah  Ixiii,  1-4:  "Who  is  this  that 
Cometh  from  Edom,  with  dyed  garments  from 
Bozrah?  this  that  is  glorious  in  his  apparel, 
traveling  in  the  greatness  of  his  strength?  I 
that  speak  in  righteousness,  mighty  to  save. 
Wherefore  art  thou  red  in  thine  apparel,  and 
thy  garments  like  him  that  treadeth  in  the 
winefat?  I  have  trodden  the  winepress  alone; 
and  of  the  people  there  was  none  with  me: 
for  I  will  tread  them  in  mine  anger,  and  tram- 
ple them  in  my  fury;  and  their  blood  shall  be 
sprinkled  upon  my  garments,  and  I  will  stain 
all  my  raiment.      For  the  day  of  vengeance 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.        1 85 

is  in  mine  heart,  and  the  year  of  my  redeemed 
is  come."  The  idea  in  both  passages  is  the" 
same.  It  is  that  of  a  warrior  staining  his  rai- 
ment in  the  blood  of  his  enemies.  .  The  vest- 
ure "dipped"  in  Revelation  is  the  garment 
stained  in  Isaiah;  and,  while  bapto  expresses 
the  idea  of  stain,  without  regard  to  mode, 
the  condition  of  the  scene,  as  well  as  the  pos- 
itive language  of  the  prophet,  indicates  that 
the  vesture  is  to  be  understood  as  stained,  or 
dyed,  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood.  Im- 
mersion is  out  of  the  question.  So,  in  the 
expression,  ''Give  a  sop  when  I  have  dipped 
it,"  the  idea  is  not  that  of  an  immersion,  but 
smearing.  (See  John  xiii,  26.)  So,  also,  in 
Matthew  xxvi,  23:  "He  that  dippeth  his 
hand  w^ith  me  in  the  dish"  does  not  mean 
immerse  his  hand;  for  it  was  not  customary 
to  immerse  the  hand  in  the  dish  from  which 
food  was  being  taken  at  the  table.  In  all 
these  places  bapto  bears  the  general  meaning 
of  wet,  dye,  stain,  moisten,  smear,  and  that 
without  expressing  the  mode. 

Now,  before  tracing  the  Bible  use  of  this 
v/ord  further,  I  wish  to  look  outside  of  the 
Scriptures  for  a  little  time.      Much  is  said  in 


1 86  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

this  general  controversy  about  the  primary 
and  the  secondary  meaning  of  the  word — 
about  its  Hteral,  metaphorical,  and  conse- 
quential meanings;  but  it  is  not  possible,  in 
these  discourses,  to  enter  critically  into  this 
department  of  investigation,  nor  is  it  neces- 
sary. I  am  not  so  much  concerned  about 
the  primary  meaning  as  the  proper  meaning 
at  the  time  the  Savior  spoke  and  the  New 
Testament  was  written.  It  is  well  known 
that  the  first  meaning  of  words  does  not 
always  remain  their  proper  meaning.  Much 
of  the  labor  of  the  philologist  consists  in 
tracing  the  history  of  words  and  marking 
the  modifications  of  their  meaning.  It  is  by 
no  means  uncommon  for  the  secondary  mean- 
ing to  take  the  place  of  the  primary  as  the 
proper  and  literal  meaning;  but  upon  this 
point  I  wish  to  read  the  language  of  the 
learned  immersionist  critic  whom  I  have 
already  named,  Mr.  Carson.  He  is  speaking 
of  this  same  Avord  bapto,  and  says:  **Now, 
while  I  contend  that  dyeing  is  the  secondary 
meaning  of  this  word,  I  contend  also  that 
this  is  a  real  literal  meaning,  independent  of 
consequence.      Although   this   meaning   arose 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.        1 8/ 

from  the  dyeing  by  dipping,  yet  the  word 
has  come,  by  appropriation,  to  denote  dyeing 
without  reference  to  mode.  .  .  .  That 
bapto  signifies  to  dye,  in  any  manner,  is 
a  truth  which,  instead  of  being  against  us, 
serves  to  solve  difficulties  that  have  been 
very  clumsily  got  over  by  some  of  the  ablest 
Avriters  on  this  side  of  the  question. 
Nothing  in  the  history  of  words  is  more  com- 
mon than  to  enlarge  or  diminish  their  mean- 
ing. Ideas  not  originally  included  in  them 
are  often  affixed  to  some  words,  while  others 
drop  ideas  originally  asserted  in  their  appli- 
cation. In  this  way,  bapto,  from  signifying 
mere  mode,  came  to  be  applied  to  a  certain 
operation  usually  performed  in  that  mode. 
From  signifying  dip,  it  came  to  signify  to 
dye  by  dipping,  because  this  was  the  way  in 
which  things  were  usually  dyed;  and  after- 
ward, from  dyeing  by  dipping,  it  came  to 
denote  dyeing  in  any  manner.  A  like  process 
might  be  shown  in  the  history  of  a  thousand 
words."  Mr.  Carson  thus  frankly  gives  his 
opinion  of  this  word  bapto,  and  proceeds  to 
support  it  by  adducing  examples  from  the 
classics,  which,  without  his  designing  it,  prove 


1 88  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

beyond  successful  contradiction,  that  bapto  is, 
as  we  contend,  a  generic  term.  Among  other 
examples,  he  gives  the  following:  **The  only 
instance  in  which  I  have  observed  the  word 
bapto  in  this  signification  is  in  the  works  of 
Hippocrates.  He  employs  it  to  denote  dyeing 
by  dropping  the  dyeing  liquid  on  the  thing 
dyed  :  '  When  it  drops  upon  the  garments  they 
are  dyed.'  This,  surely,  is  not  dyeing  by 
dipping."  Then,  after  presenting  several  ex- 
amples from  other  writers,  proving  the  same 
point,  Mr.  Carson  comments  on  them  thus: 
"These  examples  are  sufficient  to  prove  that 
the  word  bapto  signifies  to  dye  in  general, 
though  originally,  and  still  usually,  applied  to 
dyeing  by  dipping.  Having  such  evidence 
before  my  eyes,  I  could  not  deny  this  to  my 
opponents,  even  were  it  a  difficulty  as  to  the 
subject  of  the  mode  of  baptism."  (See  Carson 
on  "Mode  of  Baptism,"  Chap,  ii,  Sec.  6.) 

Now,  before  reading  further  from  this 
learned  defender  of  immersion,  whose  name 
is  justly  celebrated  in  all  anti-Pedobaptist 
Churches,  I  wish  to  note  six  propositions, 
which  are  fairly  deducible  from  his  .state- 
ments.     Tljey    are    the    following:     i.    That 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.         1 89 

dyeing  is  a  real  meaning  of  bapto,  inde- 
pendent of  consequence.  2.  ''Bapto  has 
come,  by  appropriation,  to  denote  dyeing, 
without  reference  to  mode."  3.  ''From  dye- 
ing by  dipping,  it  came  to  denote  dyeing  in 
any  manner."  4.  The  examples  adduced  are 
"sufficient  to  prove  that  the  word  bapto  sig- 
nifies to  dye  in  general."  5.  ''Notliing,  in 
the  history  of  words,  is  more  common  than 
to  enlarge  or  diminish  their  meaning."  6.  A 
word  ''may  come  to  enlarge  its  meanings  so 
as  to  lose  sight  of  its  origin."  In  the  light 
of  these  propositions,  made  not  from  desire, 
but  from  the  force  of  evidence  which  an 
honest  critic  found  himself  unable  to  resist,  I 
submit  that  bapto  is  not  a  specific  word,  re- 
lating only  to  mode,  but  a  generic  term. 
The  question  is  not  as  to  its  origin  or  first 
meaning,  but  as  to  its  real  character  and 
proper  meaning,  as  determined  by  its  use  in 
the  classics  and  in  the  Scriptures. 

In  view  of  the  importance  of  this  matter, 
and  in  order  to  finish  it  up,  so  far  as  these 
discourses  are  concerned,  I  read  again  from 
Mr.  Carson.  After  charging  some  of  his 
Baptist  brethren  with  straining  matters,  and 


190  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

employing  false  criticism,  in  their  endeavors 
to  prove  that  when  bapto  relates  to  dyeing  it 
is  always  to  dyeing  by  dipping,  he  says : 
**The  observations  of  Dr.  Gale  on  this  sub- 
ject fall  in  some  degree  under  the  above 
censure.  'The  Grecians,'  says  he,  'very  fre- 
quently apply  the  word  in  all  its  various 
forms  to  the  dyer's  art,  sometimes  perhaps 
not  very  properly,  but  always  so  as  to  imply 
and  refer  only  to  its  true  natural  signification, 
to  dip.'  What  does  this  learned  writer  mean 
when  he  expresses  a  doubt  of  the  propriety 
of  this  usage?  Does  he  mean  that  such  an 
extension  of  the  meaning  of  words  is  in  some 
degree  a  trespass  against  the  laws  of  lan- 
guage? But  such  a  usage  is  in  strict  accord- 
ance with  the  laws  of  language;  and  the 
history  of  a  thousand  words  sanctions  this 
example.  Language  has  no  logical  truth  for 
its  standard,  and  therefore  against  this  it  can 
not  trespass.  Use  is  the  sole  arbiter  of  lan- 
guage ;  and  whatever  is  agreeable  to  this 
authority  stands  justified  beyond  impeach- 
ment. Candlestick  is  as  properly  applied  to 
gold  as  to  timber;  bapto  signifies  to  dye  by 
sprinkling,  as  properly  as  by  dipping,  though 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.        I9I 

originally  it  was  confined  to  the  latter.  Nor 
is  he  well  founded  when  he  asserts  that  the 
word,  in  such  applications,  always  implies 
and  refers  to  its  primary  signification  only. 
On  the  contrary,  I  have  produced  some  ex- 
amples, and  he  himself  has  produced  others, 
in  which  candor  can  not  say  that  there  is  any 
such  implication  or  reference.  From  such 
examples,  it  could  not  be '  known  even  that 
dapto  has  the  meaning  of  dip.  They  relate 
to  dyeing,  wholly  without  reference  to  dipping; 
nay,  some  of  them  with  an  expressed  refer- 
ence to  another  mode.  This  is  a  fact,  and, 
were  it  even  against  me,  I  could  not  but 
admit  it.  Nor  are  such  applications  of  the 
word  to  be  accounted  for  by  metaphor,  as  Dr. 
Gale  asserts.  They  are  as  literal  as  a  primary 
meaning.  It  is  by  extension  of  literal  mean- 
ing, and  not  by  figure  of  any  kind,  that 
words  come  to  depart  so  far  from  their  orig- 
inal signification.  The  examples  of  this  kind 
which  Dr.  Gale  produces  can  not  be  ac- 
counted for  by  his  philosophy.  'Magnes,  an 
old  comic  poet  of  Athens,  used  the  Lydlan 
music,  shaved  his  face,  and  smeared  it  over 
with  tawny  ashes.'     Now,  surely,  baptomenos 


192  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

here  has  no  reference  to  its  primary  meaning. 
Nor  is  it  used  figuratively.  The  face  of  the 
person  was  rubbed  with  the  ashes.  By  any 
thing  impUed  or  referred  to  in  this  example, 
it  could  not  be  known  that  bapto  ever  signi- 
fies to  dip.'' 

So  much  for  the  candor  of  Mr.  Carson. 
His  intelligence  and  learning  recoiled  at  the 
'/clumsy"  method  of  his  brethren,  in  getting 
over  the  difficulties  they  encountered  in  the 
classical  use  of  this  word;  and,  seeing  their 
''straining"  and  ''false  criticism,"  and  their 
manifest  failures,  he  made  a  most  vigorous 
effort  to  redeem  the  cause.  He  succeeded  in 
gaining  an  enviable  reputation  as  a  learned 
critic;  but  his  less  "clumsy"  and  more  re- 
fined methods  would  not  remove  the  difficul- 
ties. He  proved  that  bapto  is  a  generic  term, 
although  he  did  not  admit  the  fact  in  so  many 
words.  I  take  what  he  established,  and  allow 
his  speculations,  and  his  strugglings  with  in- 
superable difficulties,  to  pass;  accepting  this 
high  authority  as  superseding  the  necessity 
of  a  search  into  the  classical  use  of  the  word 
that  would  be  unsuited  to  the  public  congre- 
gation. 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.        Ip3 

As  baptizo  is  a  derivative  of  bapto,  it  can 
not  be  more  specific.  I  now  give  a  few  ex- 
amples of  its  use.  The  first  one  is  from  the 
Apocrypha,  and  is  intended  simply  as  an 
illustration.  I  read  from  Ecclesiasticus  xxxiv, 
25:  "He  that  washeth  himself  from  a  dead 
body,  and  toucheth  it  again,  what  availeth 
his  washing?"  Here  are  two  words  rendered 
**wash"  in  the  same  verse.  The  first  one  is 
baptizo,  the  last  is  louo.  The  last  is  unques- 
tionably generic;  and  the  first  can  not  be 
more  specific,  but  bears  the  same  general 
sense.  But  this  is  not  the  argument.  The 
question  is.  What  is  meant  by  the  sentence, 
'  *  He  that  washeth  [baptizetli]  himself  from  a 
dead  body?"  It  is  an  allusion  to  the  require- 
ment of  the  law  of  Moses  in  regard  to  the 
purification  of  persons  who  might  contract 
uncleanness  by  touching  the  body  of  a  dead 
person.  The  law  pronounced  such  unclean 
until  they  were  purified  by  having  the  water 
of  separation  sprinkled  upon  them.  This 
identical  purification  is  expressed  by  the  use 
of  the  word  baptizo.  The  law  is  in  Numbers 
xix,  17-19:  ''And  for  an  unclean  person 
they  shall  take  of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt 
13 


194  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

heifer  of  purification  for  sin,  and  running 
water  shall  be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel:  and 
a  clean  person  shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip  it 
in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent, 
and  upon  all  the  vessels,  and  upon  the  per- 
sons that  were  there,  and  upon  him  that 
touched  a  bone,  or  one  slain,  or  one  dead, 
or  a  grave:  and  the  clean  person  shall 
sprinkle  upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day, 
and  on  the  seventh  day:  and  on  the  seventh 
day  he  shall  purify  himself,  and  wash  his 
clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  shall 
be  clean  at  even."  Now,  it  is  evident  that 
in  this  ceremony  the  real  purification  was  in 
the  sprinkling  of  the  water  by  the  clean  per- 
son upon  the  unclean.  Hence  the  reason, 
assigned  in  the  thirteenth  verse,  why  the 
unclean  person  that  refused  to  be  purified 
should  be  cut  off  from  Israel:  ''Whosoever 
toucheth  the  dead  body  of  any  man  that  is 
dead,  and  purifieth  not  himself,  defileth  the 
tabernacle  of  the  Lord ;  and  that  soul  shall 
be  cut  off  from  Israel:  because  the  water  of 
separation  was  not  sprinkled  upon  hiin,  he  shall 
be  unclean;  his  uncleanness  is  yet  upon  him." 
Nothing  could  take  the  place  of  the  .sprink- 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.        1 95 

ling  of  the  water  by  the  clean  upon  the 
unclean.  This  was  the  great  fact  in  the 
divinely  appointed  service;  and  yet  this  cer- 
emonial washing,  as  a  whole,  is  expressed  in 
the  place  before  us  by  baptizo.  ''He  that 
baptizeth  himself  from  a  dead  body."  The 
real  baptizing  was  the  sprinkling.  The  sub- 
sequent washing  of  his  clothes  and  bathing 
of  his  flesh  was  required;  and  yet  it  was  not 
the  purification,  nor  is  there  any  probability 
that  even  this  required  an  immersion.  Con- 
sidering the  situation  of  the  Israelites  in  the 
wilderness,  where  the  crowd  was  so  great  and 
facilities  for  immersion  were  so  scarce,  it  is 
almost  a  certainty  that  both  the  washing  and 
the  bathing  were  without  immersion,  espe- 
cially since  no  word  in  the  whole  account 
demands  that  sense;  but,  to  say  the  very 
least  of  the  case,  here  is  a  baptism  in  which 
sprinkling  was  the  chief  part. 

Perhaps  the  earliest  event,  in  the  history 
of  God's  ancient  people,  that  is  mentioned  as 
a  baptism  at  a  later  day,  is  the  crossing  of  the 
Red  Sea  by  the  Israelites.  Something  took 
place,  in  connection  with*  that  event,  which 
Paul   calls  a  baptism.      I  refer  to   i   Corinthi- 


196  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ans  X,  I,  2:  ''Moreover,  brethren,  I  would 
not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant,  how  that 
all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all 
passed  through  the  sea;  and  were  all  bap- 
tized unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea."  The  plain  facts  here  are  all  I  want. 
These  are:  i.  There  was  a  baptism  —  they 
''were  all  baptized."  2.  The  baptism  took 
place  while  the  Israelites  were  crossing  the 
sea.  3.  The  cloud  was  employed  as  an  in- 
strument of  the  baptism.  Now,  the  question 
is.  How  were  they  baptized?  Our  opponents 
have  a  theory — they  must  have.  It  is  that 
the  water  of  the  sea  stood  in  walls  on  either 
side,  and  that  the  cloud  came  down  and  cov- 
ered them  over,  forming  a  tunnel,  so  that 
they  were  immersed.  This  makes  a  sorry 
baptism  unto  Moses,  if  nothing  more  was 
meant.  But  this  tunnel  arrangement  is  not 
satisfactory.  They  were  baptized  in  the  sea; 
and  yet  they  passed  over  "dry-shod"  and 
"on  dry  ground,"  according  to  the  record; 
and  but  few  have  any  faith  in  immersions  on 
dry  ground!  The  cloud  was  the  instrument 
of  the  baptism;  and  we  learn  elsewhere  what 
the  cloud  did.     This  passage  through  the  Red 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE. 


197 


Sea  is  celebrated  in  sacred  song,  in  the  sev- 
enty-seventh Psalm,  where  we  read  the  fol- 
lowing: **The  waters  saw  thee,  O  God,  the 
waters  saw  thee ;  they  were  afraid ;  the  depths 
also  were  troubled.  The  clouds  poured  out 
water;  the  skies  sent  out  a  sound ;  thine  ar- 
rows also  went  abroad.  The  voice  of  thy 
thunder  was  in  the  heaven;  the  lightnings 
lightened  the  world;  the  earth  trembled  and 
shook.  Thy  way  is  in  the  sea,  and  thy  path 
in  the  great  waters,  and  thy  footsteps  are  not 
known.  Thou  leddest  thy  people  hke  a 
flock,  by  the  hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron." 
But  for  this,  we  might  not  have  known  that 
there  was  any  other  storm  that  night  than 
the  strong  east  wind,  but  nathing  now  seems 
more  natural;  and,  but  for  what  the  apostle 
says,  we  should  not  have  known  that  there 
was  any  baptism.  The  fact,  however,  is  none 
the  less  certain  because  it  was  not  mentioned 
before ;  nor  can  there  be  any  doubt  that  the 
cloud  furnished  the  water,,  and  baptized  the 
people  by  pouring  it  upon  them. 

The  prophet  Elijah  caused  something  to 
be  done,  which  the  learned  Greek  Father  in 
the  Church,  whose  vernacular  was  the  Greek 


198  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

of  the  New  Testament,  the  celebrated  Origen, 
spoke  of  as  a  baptism,  using  this  same  bap- 
tizo.  You  remember  Elijah's  contest,  on 
Mount  Carmel,  with  the  prophets  of  Baal, 
when  he  proposed  that  they  should  build  an 
altar,  and  place  wood  upon  it,  and  cut  a 
bullock  in  pieces  and  lay  upon  the  wood,  and 
call  upon  their  god,  and  that  he  would  do 
the  same,  and  the  God  that  answered  by  fire 
should  be  acknowledged  the  true  God.  The 
challenge  was  accepted;  the  altars  were  pre- 
pared, and  the  bullocks  slain.  The  prophets 
of  Baal  called  upon  Baal,  but  got  no  answer. 
Elijah  stood  by,  and,  with  some  irony,  told 
them  to  call  aloud;  that  he  was  asleep,  or 
gone  away,  and  they  should  awake  him,  or 
in  some  way  gain  his  attention;  but  they 
were  compelled  to  give  it  up.  Then  he 
called  them  to  him,  and  he  made  ready  his 
altar,  and  the  wood,  and  the  bullock;  but, 
before  he  prayed  for  the  fire,  he  directed  his 
servants  to  pour  four  barrels  of  water  on  the 
wood.  This  was  repeated  three  times.  Bar- 
rels were  not  known  then  as  we  know  them 
now.  The  barrels  were  pails  or  jars,  such  as 
the  ancients  used  in  carrying  water.     Twelve 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  I3APTIZE.        1 99 

vessels  of  water  were  poured  upon  the  wood, 
in    three    successive    pourings.      Then,   when 
Elijah   prayed,   the  fire  fell  from  heaven,  and 
consumed    the    offering.       Now,    Origen    de- 
scribes  this,   and   calls  the  use  of  the  water, 
which  was  poured  upon  the  wood,  baptizing 
the  wood.      Hear  him:    "How  came  you  to 
think  that  Elias,  when  he  should  come,  would 
baptize,  who  did  not,  in  Ahab's  time,  baptize 
the   wood    upon   the   altar,   which  was  to  be 
washed   before    it   was   burnt,   by  the   Lord's 
appearing  in  fire?    But  he  ordered  the  priests 
to  do  that;  not  once  only,  but  he  says,  Do  it 
the  second  time;    and  they  did  it  the  second 
time :  and,  Do  it  the  third  time ;  and  they  did 
it   the   third    time.      He,    therefore,    that   did 
not  himself  baptize   then,    but  assigned  that 
work  to  others,  how  was  he  likely  to  baptize, 
when   he,   according   to   Malachi's   prophecy, 
should  come?"     (Wall's   "History  of   Infant 
Baptism.")       The    Greek    word    that    would 
have   expressed  the  mode  of  using  the  water 
would   not   express   all   the  writer  wished   to 
express.      He   regarded   the  washing  as  a  re- 
ligious  act,   a  consecration;  and  therefore  he 
used  the  generic  term,  baptizo,  for  the  purpose. 


200  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

and  that  .in  full  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
washing  was  by  pouring.  This  example  of 
the  use  of  the  ivord  by  this  learned  Christian 
father,  whose  native  tongue  was  the  Greek, 
ought  forever  to  silence  all  cavilers,  and  put 
to  rest  all  doubts  as  to  the  generic  character 
of  this  word.  The  wood  upon  the  altar  was 
baptized  when  the  water  was  poured  upon  it. 
I  now  come  to  the  daily  baptisms  which 
the  Jews  performed,  and  which  familiarized 
them  with  the  word,  so  that  when  the  ordi- 
nance was  instituted  no  explanations  Avere 
needed.  I  read  from  Mark  vii,  2-5 :  '  'And 
when  they  saw  some  of  his  disciples  eat 
bread  with  defiled,  that  is  to  say,  with  un- 
washen  hands,  they  found  fault.  For  the 
Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash 
their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition 
of  the  elders.  And  when  they  come  from 
the  market,  except  they  wash,  they  eat  not. 
And  many  other  things  there  be,  Avhich  they 
have  received  to  hold,  as  the  washing  of 
cups,  and  pots,  brasen  vessels,  and  of  tables. 
Then  the  Pharisees  and  scribes  asked  him, 
Why  walk  not  thy  disciples  according  to  the 
tradition    of   the    elders,    but   eat   bread   with 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.        20I 

unwashen  hands?"  Here  we  have  the  verb 
and  the  noun  rendered  "wash"  and  ''wash- 
ing," where  baptize  and  baptism  would  have 
been  Hteral.  The  unwashen  hands  were  un- 
baptized  hands.  The  word  rendered  "tables" 
means  couches  or  beds;  and  most  likely  the 
reference  is  to  the  large  couches  on  which  the 
Jews  reclined  during  meals.  The  question  is, 
How  were  these  baptisms  performed?  I  sub- 
mit the  following  points:  i.  The  couches,  ta- 
bles, or  beds  could  not  be  immersed  without 
great  inconvenience,  and  much  more  labor  than 
is  intimated.  2.  The  frequency  of  these  bap- 
tisms affords  strong  presumptive  proof  that 
they  were  not  by  immersion.  They  occurred 
on  returning  from  market,  and  before  eating. 
The  conveniences  for  immersion,  and  the  nec- 
essary changes  of  raiment,  would  not  always 
be  at  hand.  3.  The  water-pots  used  by  the 
Jews,  such  as  are  mentioned  in  John  ii,  6, 
which  were  "after  the  manner  of  the  purify- 
ing of  the  Jews,  containing  two  or  three  fir- 
kins apiece,"  in  all  probability  furnished  the 
water,  which,  by  means  of  these  vessels,  was 
kept  in  readiness,  and  were  not  of  the  capac- 
ity to  admit  of  immersions  of  men,  tables,  or 


202  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

couches.  4.  These  were  rehgious  baptisms, 
and  therefore  immersion  was  not  necessary  to 
meet  their  design,  which  was  a  ceremonial 
cleansing.  The  Jews  thought  themselves  lia- 
ble to  come  in  contact,  while  in  the  markets, 
with  Gentiles  or  other  unclean  persons,  and 
thereby  contract  uncleanness  in  the  religious 
sense.  To  guard  themselves  against  continu- 
ing in  any  uncleanness  thus  contracted,  they 
adopted  the  practice  of  baptizing  themselves 
whenever  they  returned  from  market  or  places 
of  exposure,  and  before  eating.  These  cere- 
monial washings,  called  baptisms,  were  not 
required  to  be  immersions,  neither  by  any 
known  law  or  tradition,  nor  by  the  end  to  be 
obtained.  They  were  not,  strictly  speaking, 
the  purifications  enjoined  by  the  law  of  Moses, 
such  as  the  washing  from  a  dead  body  and 
the  like;  but  they  were  undoubtedly  of  sim- 
ilar character;  and,  though  performed  with 
pure  water,  or  water  not  mixed  with  the  ashes 
of  the  burnt-offering,  there  is  no  shadow  of 
ground  for  supposing  the  water  was  not  ap- 
plied in  the  same  way — that  is,  by  sprinkling. 
The  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
uses  the  phrase  diaphorois  baptismois  (** divers 


NATURE  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.        203 

baptisms")  in  such  a  way  as  certainly  to  in- 
clude sprinkling-  in  baptismos,  if  not  to  mean 
sprinkling  and  that  alone.  I  refer  to  He- 
brews ix,  10:  ''Which  stood  only  in  meats 
and  drinks,  and  divers  washings  \_diaphorois 
baptismois],  and  carnal  ordinances,  imposed 
on  them  until  the  time  of  reformation." 
The  ''washings,"  or  baptisms,  were  divers — 
that  is,  many  and  of  different  kinds.  They 
were  to  be  observed  on  different  occasions, 
as  rendered  necessary  by  different  causes. 
The  allusion  is  to  all  the  washings  enjoined 
in  the  law  of  Moses.  These,  after  the  return 
of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  came  to  be  called 
baptisms;  hence  the  name  of  the  washings 
of  the  hands,  cups,  pots,  and  tables,  just 
noticed.  How  were  the  numerous  washings 
and  purifications  under  the  law  to  be  per- 
formed? Not  one  of  all  these  was  required 
to  be  done  by  immersion,  while  some  of 
them  are  known  to  have  been  by  sprinkling. 
In  every  instance  where  the  manner  of  using 
the  water  is  prescribed,  it  is  by  sprinkling; 
and  in  all  the  others,  where  the  mode  is 
not  prescribed,  the  action  is  expressed  by  a 
generic  word  properly  rendered  "wash,"  but 


204  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

never  immerse.  This,  I  claim,  settles  the 
question  to  the  extent  that  baptizo,  as  well 
as  bapto,  is  a  generic  term.  This  is  all  I 
now  seek  to  establish;  for,  this  gain-ed,  and 
the  Avhole  argument  is  ours.  Those  who  im- 
agine that '  it  must  mean  immerse,  or  else 
pour  or  sprinkle,  mistake  the  whole  issue; 
and  we  do  not  Avonder  they  never  rise  to  a 
clear  survey  of  the  broad  ground  on  which 
we  stand,  and  on  which  we  admit  the  validity 
of  baptisms  by  either  mode. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  20$ 


Discourse  VII. 

NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS. 

"Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  bap- 
tized."— Acts  ii,  41. 

HAVING  seen,  in  the  preceding  dis- 
course, the  nature  of  the  word  in  this 
discussion,  I  now  propose  a  rapid  survey  of 
the  baptisms  recorded  in  the  New  Testament, 
so  far  as  they  shed  any  Hght  on  the  question 
of  mode. 

The  first  is  the  Baptism  of  John.  The 
record  is  brief,  and  begins  so  abruptly  as  to 
imply  that  the  people  were  familiar  with  the 
rite  before  the  Baptist  began  his  ministry. 
John  was  loyal  to  the  Levitical  law,  and  enter- 
tained no  thought  of  setting  up  an  establish- 
ment of  his  own,  in  opposition  to  the  institu- 
tions received  by  the  people  as  of  divine 
authority.  All  he  did,  therefore,  was  proper 
to   be   done   under   the   law   of  Moses.     The 


206  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

legal  washings  of  the  Jews  had  long  been 
known  as  baptisms.  But  he  went  to  the  Jews 
as  a  prophet  of  God,  anointed  to  a  particular 
work,  as  a  reformer  of  his  nation.  Impelled 
by  the  Spirit  within  him,  he  went  forth  to 
call  the  people  to  repentance,  and  thus  to 
prepare  the  way  for  the  expected  Messiah's 
advent.  His  was  a  "baptism  of  repentance 
for  the  remission  of  sins."  It  was  not  Chris- 
tian baptism;  for  that  was  not  yet  instituted. 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  had  not  yet  performed  any 
official  act.  Those  who  received  John's  bap- 
tism, and  afterward  became  disciples  of  Christ, 
were  baptized  again.  But  the  nature  of  this 
special  work  is  not  before  us,  and  we  must 
pass  it. 

The  argument  in  favor  of  immersion,  from 
the  account  we  have  of  John's  baptism,  is  all 
drawn  from  the  locality  of  his  ministration, 
Avith  one  or  two  incidental  expressions.  He 
baptized  in  the  river  Jordan ;  and  he  bap- 
tized in  Enon,  near  to  Salem,  because  there 
was  much  water  there;  and  some  that  were 
baptized  in  the  river  ''went  down  into  the 
water,  and  came  up  out  of  the  water." 
These    brief    sentences    comprise    the    whole 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  207 

argument  for  immersion,  so  far  as  this  record 
is  concerned.  Can  we  reasonably  account  for 
all  these  expressions,  independently  of  the 
manner  of  administering  the  rite?  If  we  can, 
immersion  is  not  necessary  to  an  understand- 
ing of  all  that  is  written. 

Why  did  John  go  to  the  river  to  baptize? 
It  is  not  certain  that  he  began  there.  Mark 
says,  "John  did  baptize  in  the  wilderness." 
He  also  baptized  ** beyond  Jordan."  This, 
however,  was  at  Bethabara,  and  might  have 
been  in  Jordan;  and  so  there  is  a  possibility 
that  the  baptisms  **in  the  wilderness"  might 
have  been  in  the  river;  but  this  is  not  cer- 
tain, nor  is  it  important.  The  truth  is  that, 
shortly  after  John  opened  his  ministry,  a 
great  excitement  was  created,  and  the  news 
went  abroad  that  a  great  prophet  had  risen  in 
Israel.  The  people  then  came  out  to  see  and 
hear,  and  such  multitudes  thronged  about  him 
that  he  would  have  been  compelled  to  resort 
to  the  river-side  for  the  accommodation  of  the 
people,  whatever  the  mode  of  his  baptism, 
or  if  he  had  not  baptized  at  all.  A  consider- 
ation of  the  population  of  Palestine  at  that 
time,  and  a  fair  construction  of  the  record  in 


208  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

regard  to  the  numbers  that  were  baptized, 
will  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  not  less  than 
three  millions  of  persons  received  the  rite  at 
his  hands.  His  ministry  lasted  somewhere 
from  seven  to  eight  months.  Deduct  from 
this  time  the  Sabbaths,  and  the  time  em- 
ployed in  preaching,  and  necessary  for  rest, 
refreshments,  and  incidental  conversations, 
and  you  will  readily  see  that  it  was  literally 
impossible  for  him  to  immerse  the  numbers 
baptized  in  the  time  occupied.  Besides  the 
physical  labor  involved,  immersion  would  have 
imposed  many  burdens  and  inconveniences, 
in  the  way  of  changes  of  clothing,  and  mak- 
ing the  changes;  so  that  we  can  not  accept 
that  as  the  mode  of  the  baptisms,  without 
the  most  positive  proof. 

Then,  let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  that  John 
began  his  ministry  in  the  neighborhood  of 
the  Jordan;  that  the  vast  multitudes  that 
gathered  around  him  rendered  resort  to  the 
river  a  necessity,  however  he  baptized ;  and 
that  the  Jews,  in  all  their  religious  washings 
under  the  law,  attached  great  importance  to 
living  or  ''running  water,"  even  when  the 
washing  was  enjoined  by  the  law  to  be  done 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  2O9 

by  sprinkling,  as  in  case  of  cleansing  after 
the  leprosy,  and  the  washing  from  a  dead 
body,  and  many  other  cases,  and  we  have  a 
good  and  sufficient  reason  for  his  going  to 
the  river,  without  regard  to  his  manner  of 
baptizing.  And  the  fact  that  he  was  baptiz- 
ing Jews  as  a  Jew,  with  the  law  binding  upon 
him  and  the  people,  which  enjoined  religious 
washings  by  sprinklings,  which  washings  the 
Jews  now  called  baptisms,  as  we  have  seen, 
places  the  matter  before  us  almost  in  the 
light  of  a  demonstration  that  his  baptism  was 
by  sprinkling. 

But  would  it  not  take  nearly  as  much  time 
to  baptize  by  sprinkling  as  by  immersion? 
Not  necessarily  so.  In  the  latter  case,  each 
one  would  be  separately  handled  by  the  Bap- 
tist; but,  in  the  other  case,  the  recipients  of 
the  rite  might  go  to  the  water  in  companies, 
while  John,  from  his  position  in  the  ''running 
water,"  with  the  hyssop  branch  in  his  hand, 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  Jews,  ordained 
by  the  law  for  religious  washings,  could 
sprinkle  the  water  upon  them  with  great 
rapidity,  and  yet  with  due  solemnity.  Now, 
if  this  were  really  the  mode — as  the  very 
14 


210  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

best  authority  indicates  that  it  was — all  that 
is  said  in  the  Scriptures  of  those  baptized  by 
John  would  be  literally  true,  and  in  the  best 
possible  sense.  It  would  be  true  that  they 
were  baptized  in  Jordan;  it  would  be, true  if, 
in  being-  sprinkled,  they  stepped  into  the  edge 
of  the  water,  that  they  *'went  down  into  the 
water,  and  came  up  out  of  the  water;"  and, 
more  than  this,  it  would  be  true  that  they 
were  baptized  with  water,  which  can  be  true 
only  when  the  administrator  handles  the 
water,  and  not  the  person. 

And  what  has  now  been  said  answers  the 
argument  from  the  statement  that  **John  was 
baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to  Salem,  because 
there  was  much  water  there."  I  make  no 
argument  on  the  phrase,  polla  hiidata — many 
waters.  Enon  was  not  a  river.  Nor  is  there 
any  proof  in  existence  that  there  was  any 
water-stream  there  large  enough  for  immer- 
sion. That  difficulty,  however,  could  have 
been  remedied  by  digging  and  damming,  as 
it  was  a  place  of  springs.  We  have  seen 
why  John  must  pitch  his  tent  and  do  his 
work  where  there  was  a  good  supply  of 
water,    whether    he   baptized   in   one  way  or 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  211 

another.  At  the  time  the  multitude  was 
greatest,  he  did  his  Avork  at  the  river,  which 
was  a  turbulent,  muddy,  rapid  stream,  while 
the  valley  was  excessively  hot  and  unhealthy. 
Therefore,  as  soon  as  the  throng  subsided,  he 
removed  from  the  river,  where  there  was 
more  water,  to  Enon,  the  place  of  springs, 
where  there  was  still  *'much  water,"  or 
"many  waters,"  and  of  a  better  quality. 
He  sought  a  place  supplied  with  water,  on 
the  same  principle  that  our  camp-meeting 
people  make  this  a  requisite  in  selecting  a 
place  for  encampment.  By  the  force  of  cir- 
cumstances John  was  holding  camp-meetings, 
not  on  a  small  scale  either,  and  he  must  be 
located  where  water  was  plenty. 

And  John  baptized  Jesus.  So  far  as  mode 
is  concerned,  there  is  no  doubt  that  he  was 
baptized  just  as  others.  He  went  down  into 
the  water.  But  that  was  not  his  baptism. 
After  he  went  in,  he  was  baptized.  Then  he 
came  up  out  of  the  water.  All  this  sheds  no 
light  on  the  mode.  There  is  no  dispute 
about  the  fact  that  he  was  baptized  in  the 
river.  Many  pious  people  lay  much  stress 
on  his  example.      But  he  was  not  baptized  as 


212  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

an  example  for  any  body.  He  did  not  go  to 
the  baptism  till  late  in  John's  ministry,  after 
the  multitude  had  been  baptized.  A  strange 
way  to  set  an  example !  Nor  was  he  a  fit 
subject  for  John's  baptism,  in  its  ordinary 
meaning.  John's  was  a  ''baptism  unto  re- 
pentance;" but  here  was  a  just  person,  who 
needed  no  repentance.  John's  was  a  baptism 
''for  the  remission  of  sins;"  but  this  man 
had  no  sins  to  be  remitted.  Neither  could 
he  receive  Christian  baptism.  That  was  a 
sign  of  regeneration,  and  an  emblematic 
washing  away  of  sins;  all  out  of  place  in  this 
case.  Nor  could  he  be  baptized  in  his  own 
name.  What,  then,  could  his  baptism  mean? 
It  was  exceptional  in  every  respect.  John, 
by  inspiration  or  intuition,  saw  this,  and  for- 
bade him.  Jesus  insisted,  and  explained. 
What  means  his  explanation,  "Thus  it  be- 
cometh  us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness?"  He 
needed  no  outward  rite  to  fulfill  personal 
righteousness.  He  w^as  upright  and  pure. 
What  then?  He  was  a  Jew,  and  John  was 
a  Jew,  and  in  some  sense  this  whole  minis- 
try of  baptism  was  a  Jewish  rite.  He  and 
John    were    both    under    the    Levitical    law, 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  21 3 

which  he  came  to  fulfill,  not  to  destroy.  The 
righteousness  must,  therefore,  have  been  of 
the  law.  But  what  was  there  in  the  law  that 
demanded  this  rite?  Nothing  that  we  can 
trace  to  a  formal  precept  immediately  appli- 
cable to  the  case.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
the  whole  of  John's  baptisms.  Yet  there  was 
something  in  the  law  out  of  which  John's  bap- 
tism grew;  and  there  was  a  principle  in  that 
law,  interpenetrating  all  its  precepts,  and  per- 
vading all  its  ceremonies,  that  could  be  ful- 
filled in  this  extraordinary  instance.  It  was  that 
which  disallowed  any  public  religious  service 
to  be  performed  by  any  one  on  whom  the  wa- 
ter of  separation  or  dedication  had  not  been 
''sprinkled."  It  was  in  compliance  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Levitical  law  that  he  deferred  his 
ministry  till  he  was  thirty  years  of  age;  and 
in  the  same  spirit,  before  beginning  his  public 
ministry,  he  sought  this  religious  consecration 
by  the  use  of  "running  water."  How,  then, 
was  he  baptized?  Divest  your  minds  of  all 
the  songs  about  ''yielding  wave"  and  "liquid 
grave,"  and  look  at  the  facts,  and  then  decide. 
We  turn  now  to  the  first  Christian  bap- 
tism.     It  was  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when 


214  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

three  thousand  were  baptized.  The  record  is 
brief,  but  full  of  instruction,  if  we  study  all 
the  facts.  The  apostles  preached  the  Gospel, 
and  many  were  cut  to  the  heart  and  inquired 
what  they  should  do.  They  were  told  to  re- 
pent, and  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins;  and  it  is 
said  that  '  *  they  that  gladly  received  the  word 
were  baptized;  and  the  same  day  there  were 
added  unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls." 
Now,  we  are  called  upon,  with  this  short  ac- 
count, to  decide  in  our  own  minds  as  to 
probability  in  the  case,  touching  the  mode 
of  the  baptism  of  this  large  company.  See- 
ing the  word  baptize  does  not  indicate  the 
mode,  how  was  it  probably  done?  The 
apostles  w^ere  Jews,  and  so  were  the  converts ; 
they  were  all  used  to  the  religious  use  of 
water  under  the  law,  and  were  accustomed  to 
the  ''divers  baptisms"  still  practiced,  and 
needed  no  instruction  as  to  what  baptism 
was,  or  how  it  was  performed.  But,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  most,  if  not  all  these  familiar 
baptisms,  were  by  sprinkling;  and  there  is 
absolutely  no  proof  in  existence  that  any  of 
them    v/ere    b}'    immersion.       The    converts 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  21  5 

would,  therefore,  most  naturally  expect  bap- 
tism by  sprinkling.  But,  if  not,  how  much 
time  was  there  for  immersing  the  multitude? 
Surely,  none  of  them  came  expecting  it,  so 
as  to  be  prepared  with  changes  of  clothing; 
and  there  is  no  proof  that  the  apostles  em- 
ployed help.  Afterward,  when  baptized  con- 
verts were  numerous,  and  some  were  known 
to  be  qualified,  they  did  have  others  assist; 
but  now  they  stood  so  nearly  alone  that  they 
scarcely  employed  help.  The  indications  are 
against  the  supposition.  It  was  nine  o'clock 
before  they  began  preaching;  and  it  is  not 
likely  the  preaching  was  over,  and  the  inqui- 
ries made,  and  the  counsels  given,  and  the 
real  penitents  selected  and  examined,  so  that 
the  baptisms  could  begin,  till  after  noon. 
This  left  the  time  entirely  too  short  to  handle 
each  person  separately,  as  in  immersion. 
Then,  where  did  they  find  water?  There 
was  no  river  there.  Jordan  was  twenty-eight 
miles  distant;  the  brook  Kedron  was  small, 
dry  in  dry  weather,  and  turbulent  in  wet,  and 
utterly  unsuitable.  But  immersionists  cry, 
lustily,  "The  pools!  the  pools!"  Well,  there 
were  a  few  pools  and  water-pipes;    but  there 


2l6  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

is  no  probability  that  these  could  be  used  for 
such  a  purpose.  There  were  two  pools  in 
the  vicinity — Siloam  and  Bethesda.  The  first 
was  perhaps  a  mile  distant;  was  flowing  wa- 
ter, used  for  family  purposes,  and  can  hardly 
be  supposed  available,  if  it  was  of  size  and 
shape  to  adapt  it  to  that  end.  I  think  no 
one  believes  the  baptisms  took  place  in  it. 
Bethesda  held  water  enough,  but  was  not  in 
condition,  nor  available.  It  was  within  the 
precincts  of  the  Temple,  under  the  control 
of  the  priests,  and  used  for  washing  the 
animals  offered  in  sacrifice.  If  obtainable, 
the  water  was  not  ''pure  water,"  after  the 
service  it  was  rendering  in  washing  animals 
for  the  altar;  and  the  priests,  who  controlled 
it,  were  not  just  then  in  a  very  amiable  frame 
of  mind  toward  this  new  religion,  and  were 
not  likely  to  be  so  accommodating  to  the 
apostles  as  to  permit  them  to  immerse  three 
thousand  converts  to  this  new  faith,  which 
they  abhorred  as  the  deadly  foe  to  Judaism. 
The  burden  of  proof,  both  in  regard  to  the 
necessary  time  and  facilities,  is  with  those 
who  affirm  they  were  immersed.  Plainly,  the 
probabilities  are  all  against  the  supposition. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  21/ 

The  next  case  is  that  of  the  Ethiopian 
nobleman — the  Eunuch.  The  record  is  in 
Acts  viii,  26-40.  The  facts  are  few  and  sim- 
ple. This  case  is  a  favorite  with  immer- 
sionists,  being  about  the  only  example  of 
apostolic  practice  which  they  press  into  pos- 
itive service.  We  call  it  apostolic,  though 
Philip  was  not  an  apostle,  since  it  was  in 
apostolic  times.  But  what  are  the  facts? 
We  must  study  them  carefully,  and  permit 
not  one  to  escape  notice. 

.The  baptism  took  place  on  the  road  from 
Jerusalem  to  Gaza,  in  a  place  that  was  "des- 
ert." That  means  rough,  untillable,  uninhab- 
ited. The  road  crosses  quite  a  mountainous 
region,  and  there  is  no  river  on  the  road. 
Judea  does  not  abound  in  "broad  rivers  and 
streams."  Jordan  is  the  only  river  of  any  con- 
sequence in  Palestine ;  but  that  was  far  away, 
in  the  opposite  direction  from  Jerusalem.  If 
there  had  been  a  perennial  stream  in  that 
section,  it  would  have  been  noted  as  a  river, 
and  would  have  been  named.  There  is  not 
the  slightest  probability  that  there  was  a  run- 
ning stream  there  large  enough  to  immerse  a 
man    in.       And    vet    there    Avas    water ;     for 


2l8  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

"they  came  unto  a  certain  water!"  That  is 
all.  Whether  it  was  a  fountain,  spring-branch, 
well,  brook,  or  cistern,  does  not  appear.  It 
evidently  had  no  name,  and  most  likely  had 
been  provided  for  some  temporary  purpose, 
as  he  who  first  saw  it  evinced  surprise.  That 
** desert"  could  not  have  been  better  supplied 
Avith  water  than  the  valley  of  Gerar,  where 
wells  had  to  be  dug  for  the  cattle.  Kitto 
says:  "The  Jordan  is  the  only  river  of  any 
note  in  Palestine,  and  besides  it  there  are 
only  two  or  three  perennial  streams.  The 
greater  number  of  the  streams  which  figure 
in  the  history  and  find  a  place  in  the  maps 
are  merely  torrents  or  water-courses."  Mr. 
Mitchell,  in  his  Ancient  Geography,  after 
describing  Jordan,  Jabbok,  Gadara,  Heshbon, 
Kishon,  Besor,  and  Kedron,  says:  "The  larg- 
est only  of  the  foregoing  streams  contains 
water  all  the  year.  The  others  are  dry  dur- 
ing the  Summer."  The  fact  that  there  was 
no  stream  of  water  in  that  "desert"  of  any 
note,  or  that  has  been  found,  in  which  im- 
mersion could  take  place,  imposes  the  duty 
on  the  other  side  to  prove  immersion  even 
possible    in   this    case.      If   the   word    baptize 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  219 

expressed  that  mode,  we  should  have  to  infer 
the  practicabihty  of  it;  but,  since  it  does  not, 
we  need  the  proof  The  exclamation  of  the 
eunuch  shows  surprise  at  finding  any  water 
in  the  **  desert. "  Riding  along  in  the  char- 
iot, listening  to  Philip,  he  exclaims:  ''Idoul 
hudoi'T  ("Behold!  water!")  Nothing  is  said 
of  the  quantity.  The  particle  ti  means  some 
or  any,  and  would  scarcely  have  been  used 
of  a  living  stream,  when  it  is  known  that 
all  such  streams,  and  many  mere  wet-weather 
torrents,  were  named  and  called  rivers.  The 
history  of  the  country,  as  well  as  its  physical 
geography,  proves  that  water  was  scarce — 
much  too  scarce  to  accommodate  immersion- 
ists.      But  we  must  look  again. 

The  great  fact  is  that  "they  went  down 
into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch, 
and  he  baptized  him."  The  going  '^dozvit" 
was  not  the  immersion,  for  they  "both  went 
down."  The  going  into  the  water  was  not 
the  immersion,  for  they  "both  went  into  the 
Avater."  They  went  down  from  the  chariot; 
and  they  went  into  the  water  far  enough  to 
use  it  with  the  hand,  as  they  probably  used 
no  vessel.     Then,  after  they  both  went  down 


220  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

into  the  water,  the  baptism  took  place — "he 
baptized  him,"  How,  the  Avord  does  not  tell 
us;  and  the  fact  that  they  went  down  into 
the  water  does  not  tell  us.  We  might  admit 
that  they  entered  the  water,  and  yet  find  no 
immersion;  but  there  is  no  proof  that  they 
entered  it  so  much  as  w^ith  their  feet.  But, 
since  the  jingle  of  the  words  in  our  version 
indicates  an  entrance,  we  must  look  at  the 
prepositions,  and  see  if  the  entrance  is  really 
expressed. 

I  intend  no  extended  discussion  of  cis  and 
ek,  but  a  brief  illustration  of  their  force  and 
use.  The  preposition  eis  expresses  motion 
toward,  or  approach  unto,  a  given  point  or 
place;  but  the  idea  of  an  entrance,  if  there 
be  an  entrance,  must  be  gathered  from  the 
general  structure  of  the  sentence,  and  not 
from  the  natural  force  of  the  preposition. 
To  and  unto  are  just  as  literal  renderings  as 
''into."  The  usual  method  of  expressing  an 
entrance  into  any  place  or  thing  by  this  prep- 
osition is  by  employing  it  as  a  prefix  to  the 
verb.  When  it  is  made  a  prefix  to  the  verb, 
and  then  follows  the  verb  as  a  preposition,  an 
entrance  is  expressed;   but,  when  this  double 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  221 

use  does  not  occur,  the  entrance  is  not  ex- 
pressed. The  Greek  is  full  of  ilhistrations 
of  this  rule;  but  I  will  only  refer  to  John 
XX,  1-8.  In  this  paragraph  we  have  several 
examples:  "The  first  day  of  the  week  com- 
eth  Mary  Magdalene  early,  when  it  was  yet 
dark,  eis  to  imienieion  [unto  the  sepulcher],  and 
seeth  the  stone  taken  away  ek  ton  mnemeiou 
[from  the  sepulcher]."  Here  we  have  eis  and 
eky  *'unto"  and  ''from,"  when  there  was  no 
entrance — no  "into"  nor  "out  of;"  for  Mary 
did  not  go  into  the  sepulcher.  "Peter  there- 
fore went  forth,  and  that  other  disciple,  and 
came  eis  to  mneineioit  [to  the  sepulcher].  So 
they  ran  both  together:  and  the  other  disciple 
did  outrun  Peter,  and  came  first  eis  to  mne- 
meiojt  [to  the  sepulcher].  And  he  stooping 
down,  and  looking  in,  saw  the  linen  clothes 
lying;  yet  zvent  he  not  in  \ou  mentoi  eiseltheii\. 
Then  cometh  Simon  Peter  following  him,  and 
went  into  the  sepulcher,  and  seeth  the  linen 
clothes  lie,  and  the  napkin,  that  was  about 
his  head,  not  lying  with  the  linen  clothes, 
but  wrapped  together  in  a  place  by  itself 
Then  went  in  also  that  other  disciple,  which 
came  first  to  the  sepulcher,  and  he  saw,  and 


222  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

believed."  Now,  here  we  have  eis  in  every 
instance  where  the  approach  to  the  sepulcher 
is  expressed,  where  there  was  no  entrance, 
and  where  it  is  said  of  the  disciple  that  out- 
ran Peter  that  '*he  went  not  in;"  and  then, 
in  the  two  instances  following,  where  the  en- 
trance took  place  and  is  expressed,  the  double 
use  of  eis  occurs — that  is,  it  occurs  as  the 
preposition,  and  also  as  the  prefix  to  the 
verb,  which  is  the  proper  way  of  expressing 
an  entrance.  The  entrance  of  Peter  is  ex- 
pressed thus:  ''Kai  eiselthen  eis  to  mnemeion;' 
and  the  entrance  of  that  other  disciple  thus: 
^'Tote  oun  eis  e  It  he  kai  ho  alios  mathetes.'' 
These  examples  sufficiently  illustrate  the  use 
and  force  of  these  prepositions,  out  of  which 
so  much  has  been  made;  and  all  the  criticism 
in  the  world  can  not  change  the  conclusion 
reached  in  regard  to  the  law  governing  the 
use  of  eis,  while  ek  simply  corresponds  to  it, 
expressing  the  opposite  idea.  Where  eis  is 
*'to,"  ek  is  "from;"  where  eis  is  "into,"  ek 
is  "out  of,"  etc.  Now,  I  wish  not  to  be 
misunderstood  in  all  this;  for  I  know  that  eis 
is  sometimes  used  as  a  preposition,  and  not 
as  a   prefix   to   the   verb,    where   there    is   an 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  223 

entrance,  as  when  one  goes  to  a  city  or  to  a 
country;  but,  in  all  such  instances,  the  en- 
trance is  implied,  or  intinnated  in  the  nature 
of  the  case,  or  in  something  in  the  sentence 
besides  the  preposition.  The  force  of  the 
preposition  does  not  express  it.  This  is  all 
that  is  necessary  to  show  the  failure  of  all 
efforts  to  prove  so  much  as  an  entrance  of 
the  water,  in  the  case  before  us,  even  to  the 
extent  of  moistening  the  sandals;  and  all  this 
applies  to  the  other  passages  where  these 
phrases,  ''going  down  into  the  water,"  and 
** coming  up  out  of  the  water,"  are  found, 
as  in  the  baptism  of  the  Savior.  There  is 
positively  nothing  in  this  language  that  indi- 
cates any  thing  about  the  mode  of  baptism; 
and  this,  in  connection  with  the  improbability 
of  there  being  water  in  that  ''desert"  of  suf- 
ficient depth  for  immersion,  leaves  this  cele- 
brated case,  which  forms  so  large  a  part  of 
the  capital  of  immersionists,  ''high  and  dry" 
above  the  ragings  of  their  noisy  billows. 

And  it  should  r;ot  be  forgotten  that  there 
was  ** sprinkling"  in  the  text  from  which 
Philip  was  preaching  to  the  eunuch.  You 
remember   that   Philip   found    him   reading   a 


224  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

passage  which  is  in  the  fifty-third  chapter  of 
Isaiah,  and  that  his  book  was  not  divided 
into  chapters  and  verses  as  ours  is;  and  then 
you  will  observe  that  he  was  reading  Isaiah's 
prophetic  description  of  the  Messiah,  so  that 
the  paragraph  he  was  reading,  but  a  few  lines 
above  the  one  at  which  Philip  arrested  his 
attention,  contained  these  words,  "So  shall 
he  sprinkle  many  nations,"  etc.  The  evan- 
gelist could  not  expound  the  paragraph  with- 
out encountering  these  words,  and  he  must 
necessarily  apply  them  in  some  way  to  the 
work  of  Christ.  How  could  he  explain  them 
without  referring  to  the  religious  use  of 
water?  And  how  could  he  apply  them  to 
Christ  without  pointing  to  the  moral  signifi- 
cance of  the  use  of  water?  And,  then,  how 
could  he  make  the  sprinkling  represent  a 
moral  cleansing  without  making  it  represent 
the  same  moral  cleansing  that  baptism  alv»^ays 
represents.  But  if  he  made  the  ''sprinkling" 
represent  a  moral  cleansing,  and  the  exact 
moral  cleansing  that  baptism  always  repre- 
sents, how  could  he  fail  to  explain  this 
sprinkling  as  a  prophetic  description  of  the 
baptism    ordained    by    the    Messiah?      Deny 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  225 

this,  and  the  whole  allusion  is  inexplicable; 
admit  it,  and  the  whole  passage  is  plain,  and 
the  eunuch's  allusion  to  water,  as  though 
Philip  had  just  been  speaking  of  water,  is 
easily  understood,  and  the.  conclusion  be- 
comes irresistible  that  Philip  had  explained 
the  ''sprinkling"  as  denoting  baptism. 

Our  next  example  is  the  baptism  of  Saul 
of  Tarsus.  There  are  two  points  in  the  his- 
tory of  this  case  which  can  never  be  harmo- 
nized with  the  idea  that  he  was  immersed. 
The  first  is,  that  he  was  baptized  in  the  house, 
in  a  private  dwelling  in  Damascus;  and  the 
second  is,  that  he  was  baptized  in  a  standing 
posture.  The  first  is  the  great  fact,  while  the 
second  beautifully  coincides  with  the  known 
circumstances  of  the  case.  The  record  is  in 
Acts  ix,  17-19:  ''And  Ananias  went  his 
way,  and  entered  into  the  house;  and  putting 
his  hands  on  him  said,  Brother  Saul,  the 
Lord,  even  Jesus,  that  appeared  unto  thee  in 
the  way  as  thou  camest,  hath  sent  me,  that 
thou  mightest  receive  thy  sight,  and  be  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  immediately 
there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been  scales: 
and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose, 
15 


226  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

and  was  baptized.  And  when  he  had  re- 
ceived meat,  he  was  strengthened."  Saul, 
the  persecutor,  had  received  authority  from 
the  chief  priests,  to  go  to  Damascus,  and 
bind  the  disciples,  and  take  them  to  Jerusa- 
lem for  punishment.  On  his  way,  he  was  ar- 
rested by  the  appearance  of  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, and  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the 
doctrine  he  was  aiming  to  destroy.  In  agony 
of  soul  he  cried  out,  ''Lord,  what  wilt  thou 
have  me  to  do?"  He  was  told  that  he  should 
learn  that  in  Damascus.  Then  he  was  taken, 
blind  and  full  of  anxiety,  to  the  city,  to  the 
house  of  Judas,  on  Straight  Street.  There 
he  continued,  in  deepest  penitence  and  prayer, 
three  days  and  nights,  without  eating  or 
drinking,  and  most  certainly  without  rest. 
In  the  mean  time  Ananias  was  prepared  by  a 
vision  from  heaven  for  his  holy  mission,  and 
was  told  where  he  would  find  Saul,  and  what 
he  should  say  to  him.  The  passage  read  re- 
lates the  interview.  Saul  was  a  Jew,  and 
needed  not  to  be  told  what  baptism  was,  or 
how  it  was  performed.  Ananias  found  him 
in  the  house,  and  no  doubt  found  him  pros- 
trate with  fasting  and  grief.      Without  delay. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  22/ 

he  fulfilled  his  mission ;  for,  approaching  him, 
he  said,  Brother  Saul,  and  laid  his  hands  on 
him,  and  pronounced  the  words  recorded. 
Then  mwiediately  the  scales  fell,  sxid  forthwith 
he  received  his  sight,  and  aldose,  and  was  bap- 
tized. The  narrative  forbids  the  idea  of  de- 
lay, or  of  leaving  the  house.  He  had  taken 
no  refreshments  since  he  came,  and  of  course 
he  was  greatly  weakened;  but  after  he  was 
baptized,  he  took  food  and  was  strengthened. 
It  is  as  plain  as  if  said  in  so  many  words, 
that  he  received  refreshments  before  he  left 
the  house, "  after  Ananias  * '  entered  into  the 
house,"  and  found  him  there.  He  was  then 
in  condition  to  go  out  to  the  synagogue, 
whither  he  went,  and  preached  Christ  unto 
the  people.  Now,  here  is  the  whole  case : 
We  find  him  '*in  the  house;"  we  see  how 
brief  was  the  interview,  and  that  the  words 
"immediately"  and  "forthwith"  are  em- 
ployed to  indicate  the  rapidity  with  which 
the  events  of  that  interview  occurred ;  and 
then  the  recognition  of  his  weakness  from 
fasting  comes  in  to  assure  us,  beyond  doubt, 
that  there  was  no  leaving  the  house,  nor  wan- 
dering away  in  the  search  of  a  river  or  pool. 


228  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

and  then  coming  back  again,  before  the  re- 
freshments were  taken.  It  is  a  plain  case  of 
baptism  in  a  private  faniily  dwelling-house. 
We  leave  it  for  those  who  imagine  him  im- 
mersed, to  imagine,  contrary  to  the  record, 
all  the  conditions  of  the  immersion. 

But  he  arose  {anastas,  stood  up)  and  was 
baptized.  In  Acts  i,  15,  we  have  precisely 
the  same  expression  in  regard  to  Peter,  where 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  stood  on  his 
feet:  "And  in  those  days  Peter  stood  up 
[cmastas\  in  the  midst  of  the  disciples,"  etc. 
This  is  the  exact  idea  conveyed  by  anastas. 
Peter  ''stood  up,"  and  Saul  "stood  up  and 
was  baptized."  This  agrees  with  the  com- 
mand, as  given  by  Ananias,  Acts  xxii,  16: 
"And  now,  why  tarriest  thou?  arise,  and  be 
baptized."  The  original,  anastas  baptisai^  is, 
literally,  stand  up  and  be  baptized.  This  is  to 
the  point,  and  conclusive.  Saul  was  baptized, 
in  a  private  house,  in  the  city,  standing  on  his 
feet!     Here  we  leave  the  case. 

We  will  now  accompany  Peter  from  Joppa 
to  Cesarea,  and  with  him  enter  the  house  of 
Cornelius,  the  devout  centurion,  and  witness 
the  baptism  of  the   first  Gentile  converts  to 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS. 


229 


the  Christian  faith.  We  need  not  await  to 
study  the  visions  of  the  parties,  by  which  one 
was  induced  to  send,  and  the  other  to  go 
when  sent  for;  nor  need  we  Hnger  by  the 
way  to  ponder  the  emotions  and  meditations 
of  each,  as  the  one  gathered  his  friends  and 
waited  the  strange,  expected  guest,  and  the 
other  pursued  his  anxious  journey,  on  a  mis- 
sion so  novel,  and  as  yet  uncertain  in  its  full- 
est meaning.  We  are  already  at  the  threshold 
of  the  centurion's  house,  and  the  interview 
begins.  '*  As  Peter  was  coming  in,  Cornelius 
met  him,  and  fell  down  at  his  feet,  and  wor- 
shiped him.  Peter  took  him  up,  saying, 
Stand  up ;  I  myself  also  am  a  man.  And  as 
he  talked  with  him,  he  went  in,  and  found 
many  that  were  come  together."  Here  we 
are,  all  in  the  house  together.  Peter  asks 
why  he  had  been  sent  for;  Cornelius  rehearses 
his  vision,  and  the  instruction  of  the  angel; 
the  last  of  Peter's  misgivings  depart,  and  he 
opens  his  ministry  in  faith.  We  pass  over 
the  sermon.  It  was  worthy  the  occasion.  It 
was  of  Jesus  and  the  resurrection,  and  God's 
method  of  pardon,  and  closed  with  an  appeal 
to  the  testimony  of  the  prophets.      "While 


230  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Peter  yet  spake  these  words,  the  Holy  Ghost 
fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the  word.  And 
they  of  the  circumcision  which  believed  were  as- 
tonished, as  many  as  came  with  Peter,  because 
that  on  the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  they  heard  them  speak 
with  tongues,  and  magnify  God.  Then  an- 
swered Peter,  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we?  And 
he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  This  is  all  we  know 
about  this  baptism.  But  it  will  be  observed 
that  the  whole  service  was  in  the  house.  There 
is  not  the  shadow  of  a  hint  that  any  part  of 
it  was  outside,  or  that  there  was  any  delay. 
Indeed,  the  hints  are  all  in  the  opposite  di- 
rection ;  and,  the  more  we  study  them,  the 
more  we  see  the  folly  of  supposing  that  these 
Gentiles  were  taken  out  to  a  river  or  pool, 
and  immersed.  The  baptism  was  suggested 
to  Peter,  and  justified,  by  the  fact  that  they 
had  already  been  baptized  by  the  pourijig  out 
of  the  Holy  Ghost;  for  thus  he  explains  it 
himself,  in  his  rehearsal,  when,  after  his  return 
to  Jerusalem,   they  of  the  circumcision  con- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  23  I 

tended  with  him.  In  this  defense,  he  said: 
'*And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost 
fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning. 
Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
how  that  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized  with 
water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost."  If,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  the 
apostles  at  the  beginning — that  is,  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost — they  were  thereby  baptized,  as 
we  know  they  were ;  so  here,  when  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  these  Gentiles,  as  on  the  apos- 
tles, they  also  were  baptized  by  this  outpour- 
ing ;  and  as  they  had  the  spiritual  baptism, 
they  ought  to  have  its  outward  sign,  which  is 
baptism  with  water.  Thus  Peter  reasoned, 
and  thus  the  Church  decided,  when  they  held 
their  peace  and  glorified  God. 

But  we  have  another  very  suggestive  hint 
in  the  apostle's  way  of  calling  for  the  water 
with  which  to  administer  the  baptism.  They 
were  all  in  the  house,  and  the  water  must  be 
brought  and  handled,  if  the  baptism  took  place 
in  the  house;  or  they  must  go  out  and  find 
the  water,  and  find  it  plentiful  and  accessible, 
if  immersion  was  contemplated.  The  people 
and  the  water  must  be  brought  together.      If 


232  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  apostle  had  contemplated  the  removal  of 
the  people,  and  asked  for  difficulties  or  pro- 
hibitions, he  would  have  said,  Can  any  man 
forbid  the  people?  But  since  he  did  not  do 
that,  but  alluded  to  a  possible  prohibition  of 
the  water,  he  evidently  had  the  conveyance 
of  the  water  and  the  handling  of  the  water  in 
view.  This  is  plain  and  natural.  It  harmo- 
nizes well  with  the  notion  that  the  baptism 
was  there  in  the  house,  where  they  were 
assembled;  but  it  seems  awkward,  if  a  river 
was  to  be  visited.  A  German  divine  has 
well  said  that  the  inquiry  of  Peter,  when  put 
into  the  language  of  modern  etiquette,  would 
run  thus:  **Will  some  one  present  be  kind 
enough  to  furnish  us  a  little  water,  that  these 
may  now  be  baptized  therewith,  seeing  they 
have  already  been  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost?"  The  appeal  was  to  those  of  the 
circumcision,  who  came  with  him  from  Joppa, 
whose  concurrence  he  evidently  desired. 

But,  leaving  this  congregation  still  in  the 
house,  we  pass  over  into  Macedonia,  and  fall 
into  company  with  Paul  and  Silas,  who  had 
been  called  there  by  a  vision,  as  Peter  had 
been  to  Cesarea.      We  find  them,  as  the  first- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  233 

fruits  of  their  ministry,  baptizing  Lydia  and 
her  household,  in  whose  house  they  find  a 
home.  Here  Paul  cast  out  a  ''spirit  of  divi- 
nation" from  a  damsel  who  .brought  gain  to 
her  masters,  and  by  this  miracle  excited  the 
rage  of  those  whose  income  had  been  so  sud- 
denly cut  off.  The  result  was,  a  tumult  was 
raised,  and  Paul  and  Silas  were  arrested,  and 
beaten  with  ''many  stripes,"  and  cast  into 
prison.  Following  them,  we  find  that  they 
were  not  looked  upon  as  ordinary  prisoners. 
The  jailer  was  charged  to  keep  them  safely; 
and  he  intended  to  be  faithful  to  his  respon- 
sibility, knowing  that  his  life  would  pay  the 
forfeit  if  he  proved  rem.iss.  Having  received 
such  a  charge,  he  "thrust  them  into  the 
inner  prison,  and  made  their  feet  fast  in  the 
stocks."  After  this  precaution,  he  felt  re- 
lieved of  care,  and  went  to  sleep.  But  these 
prisoners  did  not  sleep.  "At  midnight,  Paul 
and  Silas  prayed,  and  sang  praises  unto  God: 
and  the  prisoners  heard  them.  And  sud- 
denly there  was  a  great  earthquake,  so  that 
the  foundations  of  the  prison  were  shaken : 
and  immediately  all  the  doors  were  opened, 
and    every    one's    bands   were   loosed.       And 


234  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  keeper  of  the  prison  awaking  out  of  his 
sleep,  and  seeing  the  prison  doors  open,  he 
drew  out  his  sword,  and  would  have  killed 
himself,  supposing  that  the  prisoners  had 
been  fled.  But  Paul  cried  with  a  loud  voice, 
saying,  Do  thyself  no  harm:  for  we  are  all 
here.  Then  he  called  for  a  light,  and  sprang 
in,  and  came  trembling,  and  fell  down  before 
Paul  and  Silas,  and  brought  them  out,  and 
said.  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved?  And 
they  said,  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house.  And 
they  spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house.  And  he 
took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and 
washed  their  stripes;  and  was  baptized,  he 
and  all  his,  straightway.  And  when  he  had 
brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat  be- 
fore them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with 
all  his  house."     (Acts  xvi,  25-34.) 

Here  are  several  notable  things:  i.  Paul 
and  Silas  were  committed  to  prison  under  a 
strict  charge  that  they  be  kept  safely.  2. 
Under  the  pressure  of  this  charge,  the  keeper 
**  thrust  them  into  the  inner  prison,  and  made 
their  feet  fast   in  the  stocks."     3.   They  sang 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  235 

and  prayed  at  midnight,  until  the  earthquake 
occurred.  4.  The  keeper  slept  where  he 
could  see  the  door  of  the  inner  prison.  5. 
When  he  saw  the  doors  all  open,  he  was 
alarmed;  and,  thinking  the  prisoners  were 
gone,  he  was  about  to  take  his  own  life,  in 
order  to  avoid  a  pubHc  execution.  6.  Paul 
could  see  him  in  his  apartments,  from  the  in- 
ner prison,  showing  that  the  keeper  lived  in 
the  same  building;  and,  seeing  him  get  his 
sword,  the  prisoner  cried  out  to  him  to  desist 
from  his  desperate  purpose.  7.  The  keeper 
called  for  a  light.  While  Paul  could  see  him, 
he  could  not  see  Paul,  for  the  inner  prison 
was  darker  than  the  keeper's  apartments.  8. 
He  sprang  in,  from  his  own  room,  of  course, 
into  the  inner  prison,  and  fell  down  before 
them,  and  asked  what  he  should  do.  9.  He 
brought  them  out — not  out  of  the  prison 
building,  but  out  of  the  inner  prison.  This 
brought  them  into  the  common  prison  hall, 
located  between  the  inner  prison  or  dungeon, 
no  doubt,  and  the  apartments  occupied  by 
the  keeper  and  his  family.  10.  Here  the 
household  gathered,  as  was  most  natural, 
under  the  excitement;  and  here  the  apostles 


236  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

spoke  the  word  of  the  Lord  unto  all  that 
were  in  the  house;  and  here  water  was 
brought,  with  Avhich  the  lacerated  backs  of 
these  men  of  God  were  washed  ;  and  here, 
without  doubt,  the  baptism  took  place. 

Is  there  any  possibility  of  mistake  at  this 
point?  I  certainly  think  not;  and  yet  im- 
mersionists  struggle  desperately  to  get  all 
these  parties  out  of  the  building,  and  away 
in  search  of  a  river,  before  the  rite  was  per- 
formed. All  that  can  be  said  on  that  sub- 
ject, however,  is  in  the  words,  "he  brought 
them  out."  It  is  assumed,  contrary  to  the 
probabilities  in  this  case,  that  this  took  them 
out  of  the  prison.  I  say,  ''contrary  to  the 
probabilities,"  for  the  reason  that  all  the  in- 
dications are  that  the  jailer  lived  under  the 
same  roof  with  the  prison,  and  the  phrase, 
"he  brought  them  out,"  can  only  apply  to 
the  "inner  prison,"  into  which  he  sprang. 
This  is  confirmed  by  the  reflection  that  the 
jailer  had  not  yet  heard  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  and  Avas  not  yet  in  condition  of  mind 
to  take  the  hazard  of  removing  the  prisoners 
from  the  prison,  although  his  heart  was 
touched,  and  he  was  prompted  to  show  them 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  237 

kindness.  They  spoke  the  word  of  the  Lord 
to  all  in  the  house;  but  evidently  these  were 
now  gathered  in  the  prison;  for  the  prisoners 
were  not  taken  into  the  family  residence  till 
after  their  stripes  were  washed,  and  the 
household  baptized.  After  this,  they  were 
taken  into  the  house  for  refreshments.  This 
is  all  natural,  orderly,  and  in  keeping  with  the 
positions  and  relations  of  the  parties.  But  to 
imagine  them  all,  the  jailer,  his  whole  house- 
hold, and  the  prisoners,  out  of  the  prison 
building,  in  the  dark,  contrary  to  the  law, 
and  in  jeopardy  of  the  jailer's  life,  wandering 
through  the  streets  of  the  city  of  Philippi, 
between  midnight  and  daylight,  in  search  of 
conveniences  for  immersion,  is  making  too 
heavy  a  draft  on  the  credulity  of  intelligent 
people.  Nor  is  the  supposition  that  the 
prison  was  provided  with  a  pool  convenient 
for  the  purpose  less  violent.  There  is  really 
no  hypothesis  that  will  meet  all  the  facts  re- 
corded, and  explain  all  the  allusions  in  the 
record,  except  the  one  just  given.  But  this 
is  utterly  fatal  to  the  idea  that  there  was  any 
immersion  in  this  baptism.  And  the  language 
and   conduct   of  the   apostles,   the  next  day, 


238  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

when  the  magistrates  sent  the  under  officers 
to  the  keeper  of  the  prison,  saying,  **Let 
those  men  go,"  forbids  the  supposition  that 
they  had  been  out  in  the  night.  The  keeper 
reported  this  to  Paul,  saying,  ''Now  therefore 
depart,  and  go  in  peace."  But  Paul  indig- 
nantly refused,  and  said:  "They  have  beaten 
us  openly,  uncondemned,  being  Romans,  and 
have  cast  us  into  prison ;  and  now  do  they 
thrust  us  out  privily?  Nay  verily;  but  let 
them  come  themselves  and  fetch  us  out. 
And  the  Serjeants  told  these  words  unto  the 
magistrates :  and  they  feared  when  they  heard 
that  they  were  Romans.  And  they  came  and 
besought  them,  and  brought  them  out,  and 
desired  them  to  depart  out  of  the  city.  And 
they  went  out  of  the  prison,  and  entered  into 
the  house  of  Lydia:  and  when  they  had 
seen  the  brethren,  they  comforted  them,  and 
departed."  Now,  all  this  indignation  is  in- 
compatible with  the  idea  that  they  had  been 
out  of  the  prison  "privily,"  to  baptize  the 
family,  or  for  any  purpose  whatever;  and  the 
phrase,  "they  went  out  of  the  prison,"  when 
they  left  the  keeper's  house  with  his  benedic- 
tion, is  proof  positive  that  they  were  not  out 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS.  239 

of  prison  while  they  were  in  his  house. 
Here,  then,  is  baptism  performed  where  im- 
mersion can  not  be  supposed  possible,  with- 
out the  most  positive  proof,  the  least  particle 
of  which  does  not  exist.  And  here  we  take 
captive  the  immersion  theory,  and  commit  it, 
bound  with  chains  of  adamant,  to  the  stocks 
and  dungeon  of  an  inner  prison,  while  all  its 
friends  are  unable  to  invoke  an  earthquake  to 
move  a  bolt    or    jar  a  link! 

These  are  all  the  baptisms  of  the  New 
Testament  which  are  supposed  to  indicate 
any  thing  as  to  the  mode.  Some  of  them 
must  have  been  by  sprinkling,  to  have  any 
meaning.  Not  one  is  proved  to  have  been 
by  immersion,  nor  can  there  be  a  reasonable 
probability  in  that  direction;  while  the  im- 
mersion of  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  was  almost  certainly  impossible. 
Of  the  others,  one  was  in  the  "desert,"  far 
from  any  river,  with  the  indications  all  against 
immersion;  two  were  "in  the  house,"  in  pri- 
vate dwellings;  and  the  last,  within  the  walls 
of  the  Philippian  prison,  in  the  darkness  of 
the  night! 


240  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM 


Discourse  VIII. 

BURIED  BY  BAPTISM. 

"Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized 
into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death?  Therefore 
we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death:  that  like 
as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life. 
For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of 
his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrec- 
tion: knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with 
him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  hence- 
forth we  should  not  serve  sin." — Rom.  vi,  3-6. 

IT  is  generally  conceded,  that,  if  immersion 
is  taught  in  the  Bible,  it  is  here;  and,  if 
it  can  not  be  found  here,  but  few  persons 
will  insist  that  it  is  the  exclusive  mode  of 
baptism. 

The  immersionist  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
sage is  well  known.  It  assumes  that  baptism 
is  a  burial  of  the  physical  man  in  literal  water ; 
and  it  finds  a  resemblance  between  this  burial 
of  the  body  in  water  and  the  burial  of  Christ 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  24 1 

in  the  grave,  and  a  resemblance  between  the 
emergence  of  the  body  from  the  water  and 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the  dead.  It 
thus  makes  baptism  a  representation  of  the 
burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  I  have  sev- 
eral serious  objections  to  this  interpretation, 
and  will  mention  some  of  them,  before  taking 
up  my  own  exposition. 

Fh'st.  I  object  to  confounding  the  "burial" 
with  the  "baptism."  The  two  things  are  dis- 
tinct, and  should  not  be  confounded.  The 
terms  are  not  synonymous,  nor  are  they  in- 
terchangeable. It  is  absurd  to  say  we  are 
immersed  by  an  immersion,  or  that  we  are 
buried  by  a  burial;  therefore  the  "baptism" 
is  one  thing  and  the  "burial"  is  another 
thing.  It  is  by  the  perpetration  of  this  mis- 
take that  immersionists  gather  nearly  all  the 
comfort  this  Scripture  affords  them. 

Second.  I  object  to  this  interpretation  that 
it  violates  all  rule  and  authority  by  making 
some  of  the  terms  in  this  one  process  literal, 
and  others  figurative.  It  makes  the  "burial" 
literal,  and  the  "death,"  the  "planting,"  and 
the  "crucifixion"  figurative.  These  terms  are 
all  predicated  of  the  same  subject,  in  the  same 
16 


242  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

passage,  and  describe  different  parts  of  one 
process  or  experience,  and  are  therefore  all 
literal  or  all  figurative. 

Third.  I  object  to  this  interpretation  that 
it  utterly  mistakes  the  points  of  the  compari- 
son which  the  apostle  makes,  and  substitutes 
for  them  other  points  of  comparison  which 
are  not  in  the  passage,  and  could  not  have 
been  in  the  writer's  mind.  It  assumes  that 
the  comparison  is  between  baptism  and  the 
burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  It  sees  in 
the  act  of  putting  the  body  under  the  water 
a  representation  of  the  burial  of  Christ;  and, 
in  the  lifting  of  the  body  from  the  water,  it 
sees  the  rising  of  Christ  from  the  grave  repre- 
sented. This  is  the  great  point  in  the  inter- 
pretation. If  it  is  wrong  here,  it  is  wrong 
throughout;  and  it  is  wrong  here,  egregiously 
wrong.  There  is  absolutely  no  such  compar- 
ison in  the  passage.  This  will  come  out  fully 
further  along;  but  now  I  remark  that  the  com- 
parison is  not  at  all  between  baptism,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  on  the  other  hand.  Baptism  is  not 
in  the  comparison  at  all.  The  comparison  is 
wholly    between    the    crucifixion,    death,    and 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  243 

burial  of  Christ,  on  the  one  side,  and  the 
mystical  crucifixion,  death,  and  burial  that 
takes  place  in  us  when  we  pass  from  the  nat- 
ural to  the  spiritual  state,  on  the  other  side; 
and  this  comparison  goes  far  enough  to  take 
in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  on  one  side, 
and  the  newness  of  life  in  which  the  Chris- 
tian walks,  on  the  other.  This  blunder  is  a 
serious  one.  It  obscures  the  meaning  of  the 
passage,  destroys  its  beauty  and  harmony, 
and  leads  honest  people  to  imagine  that  they 
have  been  "buried  with  Christ,"  when  they 
have  not  so  much  as  caught  a  glimpse  of 
the  high  significance  of  this  Scripture.  If  the 
comparison  is  as  is  claimed,  why  do  the  advo 
cates  of  this  interpretation  invariably  leave 
out  the  "crucifixion,"  and  restrict  the  analogy 
to  the  "burial?" 

Fourth.  I  object  to  this  interpretation  that 
it  confuses  and  confounds  the  sacraments 
by  putting  baptism  where  the  Bible  puts 
the  Lord's-supper.  In  the  Lord's-supper  we 
show  forth  the  Lord's  death.  This  is  the 
design  of  the  Supper.  But  this  interpreta- 
tion makes  baptism  show  forth  or  represent 
the    death   and    burial    of    Christ.      It    places 


244  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

baptism  where  it  does  not  belong,  and  gives 
it  a  meaning  it  was  never  intended  to  have; 
and,  worse  still,  it  destroys  the  design  and 
significance  of  the  rite  as  Christ  ordained  it. 
Baptism  relates  not  to  the  death  and  burial 
of  Christ,  but  to  the  office  and  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  This  is  its  fixed  and  invariable 
meaning,  as  we  shall  see  more  fully  in  the 
direct  exposition,  while  the  Lord's-supper  re- 
lates only  to  Christ's  death,  and  not  to  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Baptism  is  the  ordinance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  Supper  is  the  ordi- 
nance of  Jesus  Christ, 

But  these  matters  will  all  come  up  in  the 
proper  place,  and  we  turn  to  a  direct  exam- 
ination of  the  passage  before  us. 

The  apostle  had  just  spoken  of  the  reign 
of  sin,  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  reign  of 
grace  through  righteousness,  on  the  other 
hand.  He  had  affirmed  broadly  that  *' where 
sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound;" 
and  then,  anticipating  an  objection  to  this 
doctrine  of  the  superabounding  of  grace,  to 
the  effect  that  it  might  encourage  some  to 
"continue  in  sin,"  and  thus  tend  to  licen- 
tiousness instead  of  holiness,  he  answers  this 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  245 

objection,  and  shows  that  his  doctrine  leads 
to  hoUness,  and  not  to  sin.  The  answer 
which  he  presents  to  this  objection  is,  that 
all  who  come  under  the  reigning  power  of 
grace  ''die  unto  sin.''  This  thought  of  a 
death  unto  sin  is  that  Avhich  he  enforces  and 
elaborates  throughout  this  chapter.  Hence 
the  language  with  which  the  chapter  begins: 
"What  shall  Ave  say  then?  Shall  we  con- 
tinue in  sin,  that  grace  may  abound?  God 
forbid.  How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin, 
live  any  longer  therein?  Know  ye  not,  that 
so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death?  There- 
fore we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death,"  etc. 

There  is  a  sense  in  which  all  that  Christ 
suffered  in  redemption  is  made  over  to  be- 
lievers; and  there  is  a  sense  in  which  all 
believers  are  united  to  Christ,  and  so  identi- 
fied with  him  in  the  contemplation  of  the 
Deity  that  Christ's  suffering  is  attributed  to 
them ;  so  that  it  may  be  said  that  when  Christ 
was  crucified,  they  were  crucified  with  him; 
when  he  died,  they  died  with  him;  when  he 
was  buried,  they  were  buried  with  him;    and 


246  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

when  he  arose,  they  arose  with  him;  but  to 
predicate  a  crucifixion,  death,  burial,  and  res- 
urrection of  behevers  on  this  ground  alone 
would  require  a  bold  figure  indeed.  There 
is  an  actual  experience  to  be  gained,  a  real 
transformation  into  the  image  of  Christ,  by 
an  inward  fellowship  in  his  sufferings.  When 
the  redemption  is  made  over  by  faith,  so  that 
the  believer  shares  it,  and  passes  from  the 
carnal  into  the  spiritual  life,  then  he  comes 
into  fellowship  with  Christ's  sufferings,  is 
made  conformable  to  his  death,  and  experi- 
ences the  power  of  his  resurrection.  This  is 
a  veritable  experience,  which  has  its  incipi- 
ency,  its  growth,  and  its  full  development; 
and  this  experience  is  described  in  the  pas- 
sage under  consideration.  When  we  appre- 
hend Christ,  and  put  him  on,  or  enter  into 
covenant  w^ith  him,  in  baptism,  we  solemnly 
engage  to  die  unto  sin,  and  undertake  to 
verify  this  whole  process,  which  becomes  a 
life-time  work.  The  study  of  the  terms  and 
figures  here  employed  to  give  expression  to 
this  profoundest  experience  of  the  soul,  is 
our  present  task. 

I  begin  by  recalling  your  attention  to  the 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  247 

distinction  between  the  "baptism"  and  the 
"burial."  That  which  is  done  by  baptism  is 
not  baptism.  The  burial  is  effected  by  bap- 
tism; therefore,  the  burial  is  not  baptism. 
Baptism  is  the  agent  or  instrument,  and  the 
burial  is  the  result.  This  thought,  that  the 
burial  is  not  an  act  nor  an  instrument,  but  a 
result  or  effect,  is  essential.  Let  it  be  clearly 
apprehended  and  borne  in  mind ;  for  here  is 
the  starting-point  of  much  of  the  blundering 
of  the  immersionists  in  their  interpretation. 
Baptism  is  an  action,  a  momentary  action; 
but  the  result,  the  burial,  is  permanent.  It 
is  not  temporary  or  momentary,  but  some- 
thing which  must  continue  as  long  as  we  re- 
main dead  unto  sin  and  alive  unto  God. 

Then,  the  question  arises,  Is  this  a  literal 
or  a  figurative  burial?  Or  perhaps  this  point 
would  be  more  clearly  brought  out  if  I  ask, 
Is  the  burial  the  literal  covering  of  the  body 
in  the  water,  or  is  it  a  spiritual  result  wrought 
in  the  spiritual  nature?  The  immersionist,  of 
course,  sees  nothing  in  the  passage  but  a  lit- 
eral burial  of  the  body,  by  covering  or  sub- 
merging it  in  water.  But  he  who  affirms  this 
ought  also  to  interpret  the  other  terms  in  the 


248  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

passage  in  just  as  literal  a  sense.  The  "cru- 
cifixion," the  ''planting,"  and  the  ''death," 
are  all  as  literal  and  as  material  as  the 
"burial."  Indeed,  these  terms  all  belong 
to  the  same  class,  and  are  descriptive  of 
parts  of  the  same  process  or  experience, 
and  to  separate  them  is  to  do  violence"  to 
all  rules  of  interpretation,  and  common  sense 
as  well.  But  who  can  believe  that  the 
"crucifixion"  is  a  literal  crucifixion  of  the 
literal  man?  that  the  "planting"  is  a  literal 
planting  of  the  literal  man?  and  that  the 
"death"  is  the  literal  death  of  the  literal 
man?  He  who  can  beheve  all  this  must  pos- 
sess a  stock  of  credulity  that  rarely  falls  to 
the  lot  of  reasoning  men ;  and  yet  it  is  not  a 
particle  more  absurd  than  it  is  to  hold  that 
the  "burial"  is  literal,  while  the  crucifixion 
and  death  are  figurative. 

The  true  answer  to  the  question  concerning 
the  nature  of  the  burial  will  be  found  by  as- 
certaining the  subject  of  the  burial.  What  is 
it  that  is  buried?  Every  thing  in  the  passage 
must  hinge  on  the  answer  to  this  question. 
The  immersionist  says  it  is  the  body,  the 
literal  man.     If  this  turns  out  to  be  true,  he 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  249 

gains  a  point;  but  it  is  a  point  which  brings 
trouble  on  every  side.  But  let  us  look  a 
little.  We  never  bury  a  man  till  he  is  dead. 
Hence,  a  burial  always  implies  a  death — a 
previous  death.  If  we  hear  that  a  man  has 
been  buried,  we  need  not  be  told  that  he  had 
previously  died.  So  in  this  Scripture.  Here 
is. a  burial,  and  it  implies  a  previous  death; 
but  the  previous  death  is  expressed,  as  well 
as  imphed,  and  it  is  a  death  unto  sin.  And 
that  which  dies  is  the  subject  of  the  burial. 
There  can  be  no  question  here.  The  iden- 
tical thing  or  person  that  dies  is  the  thing  or 
person  that  is  buried.  Then,  if  we  can  find 
out  the  subject  of  the  death,  we  shall  have 
found  the  subject  of  the  burial.  If  it  is  the 
body  that  dies,  the  literal  man,  it  is  the  body 
that  is  buried;  but  if  it  is  not  the  body  that 
dies,  it  is  not  the  body  that  is  buried.  If  it 
is  the  soul  that  dies,  the  soul  is  buried.  Or 
if  it  is  neither  the  body  nor  the  soul  that 
dies,  literally,  but  something  that  pertains  to 
either  or  both,  then  that  thing  which  dies, 
whatever  it  is,  must  be  the  subject  of  the 
burial.  Thus  far,  all  is  plain.  But  the  ques- 
tion is,  What  is  it  that  dies?     It   is   not  the 


250  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

body;  for  Paul  was  yet  alive  in  the  body,  and 
was  writing  to  men  in  the  body.  It  was  not 
the  soul;  for  the  soul  was  undergoing  an  ex- 
perience that  brought  life,  and  not  death. 
What,  then,  could  it  be?  The  question  is 
vital,  and  we  must  move  cautiously  in  quest 
of  the  answer. 

The  apostle  Paul,  in  this  Epistle,  deals 
largely  in  personifications.  Indeed,  he  per- 
sonifies almost  every  thing  he  mentions. 
The  law,  sin,  death,  life,  grace,  righteous- 
ness— all  are  personified;  all  these,  in  the 
vivid,  animated  style  of  the  apostle,  pass  be- 
fore us  as  living  personalities,  clothed  with  all 
the  powers  and  passions  of  active  intelli- 
gences. In  this  way  the  carnal  nature,  the 
moral  depravity  of  our  being,  is  personified, 
and  denominated  the  ''old  man,"  ''the  body 
of  sin."  This  "old  man"  is  the  aggregate 
or  assemblage  of  the  sinful  lusts  and  affec- 
tions of  the  unrenewed  nature ;  and  the  great 
problem  in  Christianity,  and  in  human  expe- 
rience, is,  as  to  the  way  of  subduing  or 
triumphing  over  this  "old  man"  within  us. 
This  is  the  point  in  the  apostle's  argument, 
and   he   here    teaches    that    the    "old   man" 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  25 1 

must  be  destroyed,  or  put  to  death  by  "cru- 
cifixion." 

Now  to  the  question,  What  is  it  that  dies? 
The  answer  is  found  in  the  manner  of  the 
death.  How  is  it  brought  about?  The  apos- 
tle answers  this  right  here  in  the  text;  and 
you  observe  I  am  not  going  abroad  to  gather 
into  the  text  a  forced  meaning.  Right  here 
we  read  that  the  death  which  precedes  the 
burial,  the  death  of  the  subject  of  the  burial, 
is  brought  about  just  as  Christ's  death  was 
brought  about — by  crucifixion.  "Knowing 
this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him, 
that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that 
henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin."  Here 
it  is.  It  is  not  the  body  that  is  "crucified," 
nor  the  soul,  literally,  but  the  "old  man." 
The  "old  man"  is  crucified,  dead,  and  bur- 
ied— crucified  with  Christ,  dead  with  Christ, 
and  buried  with  Christ.  And  here  the  "old 
man"  is  left.  He  is  "put  off,"  not  to  be 
put  on  again.  He  is  buried,  not  to  be  un- 
buried  again.  He  is  not  in  the  resurrection. 
That  which  is  buried  must  remain  buried. 
This  is  the  death  unto  sin,  with  its  cause, 
process,  and  result. 


252  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

But  what  does  all  this  mean?  Can  it  be 
possible  that  this  ** crucifixion"  of  the  "old 
man"  must  come  into  the  account?  A  mo- 
ment's reflection  will  satisfy  any  one — unless 
it  be  some  one  whose  creed  is  in  danger — 
that  this  whole  experience  is  one  process, 
given  in  the  inverted  order;  the  apostle  be- 
ginning with  the  result,  and  tracing  it  back- 
ward to  the  starting-point.  But  the  question 
may  arise  as  to  whether  we  have  taken  the 
right  view  of  the  "old  man."  May  it  not 
be  that  the  "old  man"  means  the  body,  the 
physical  nature  ?  If  so^  the  body  must  be 
"crucified"  before  it  becomes  the  subject  of 
burial;  and  if  the  burial  means  an  immersion 
in  water,  none  but  a  dead  body  is  fit  for  that 
ceremony!  We  learn  elsewhere  what  the 
apostle  meant  by  the  "old  man."  We  read 
Ihe  following  on  this  point,  in  Colossians  iii, 
8-10:  "But  now  ye  also  put  off  all  these; 
anger,  wrath,  malice,  blasphemy,  filthy  com- 
munication out  of  your  mouth.  Lie  not  one 
to  another,  seeing  that  ye  have  put  off  the 
old  man  with  his  deeds;  and  have  put  on  the 
new  man,  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge 
after   the    image    of   him   that   created   him." 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM. 


253 


Here  is  the  ''old  man,"  and  he  has  been 
"put  off,"  but  the  body  is  not  put  off;  nei- 
ther is  the  ''old  man"  put  on  again,  but  the 
"new  man"  is  put  on  in  his  place.  To  the 
same  effect  we  read,  in  Ephesians  iv,  22-24: 
"That  ye  put  off  concerning  the  former  con- 
versation the  old  man,  which  is  corrupt  ac- 
cording to  the  deceitful  lusts;  and  be  rencAved 
in  the  spirit  of  your  mind  ;  and  that  ye  put 
on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created 
in  righteousness  and  true  holiness."  The 
antithesis  is  between  the  "old  man"  and  the 
"new  man,"  not  between  the  body  and  the 
soul.  The  "old  man,"  like  a  garment  worn 
out  or  polluted,  is  "put  off;"  and  the  "new 
man,"  like  a  new  garment,  fresh  and  clean,  is 
"put  on."  Thus  the  "old  man,"  following 
the  figure  in  the  text,  is  "crucified,"  and 
thereby  put  to  death;  and,  being  dead,  must 
be  "buried"  out  of  sight.  This  consum- 
mates the  process,  so  far  as  the  "old  man" 
is  concerned.  The  "old  man"  does  not  rise, 
but  the  ensuing  "newness  of  life"  is'  found 
in  the  "new  man,"  not  in  that  Avhich  was 
crucified.  The  "old  man"  is  "the  flesh," 
"the  body  of  sin,"  "the  body  of  the  sins  of 


254  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  flesh;"  and,  as  certainly  as  there  is  mean- 
ing in  language,  this  ''old  man"  is  the  subject 
of  the  crucifixion,  death,  and  burial  mentioned 
in  this  passage  of  Scripture.  Paul  says  (Gal- 
atians  v,  24):  ''And  they  that  are  Christ's 
have  crucified  the  flesh  with  the  affections 
and  lusts;"  that  is,  they  have  crucified  the 
"old  man,"  the  embodiment  of  the  affections 
and  lusts.  What  can  be  plainer  than  this,  or 
more  in  harmony  with  the  Avhole  tenor  of 
apostolic  teaching?  But,  if  I  am  right  in 
this,  it  is  evident  that  these  terms  are  all  to 
be  taken  in  the  figurative  sense,  and  the  idea 
of  a  physical  burial  of  the  physical  man  in  a 
physical  element  is  as  foreign  to  the  passage 
as  is  the  thought  of  burying  a  man  in  the 
moon. 

And  here  I  must  recur  to  the  mistake  so 
often  made  in  regard  to  the  comparison,  or 
analogy,  found  in  this  text.  Immersionists, 
starting  with  the  blunder  of  confounding  the 
baptism  and  the  burial,  imagine  that  the  com- 
parison is  between  the  act  of  baptism  and  the 
burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  This,  allow 
me  to  repeat,  is  all  wrong — wrong  in  incep- 
tion, and  in  every  point  of  application.     There 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  255 

is  no  resemblance  between  baptism,  in  any 
mode,  and  a  crucifixion;  and,  therefore,  there 
is  no  starting-point,  nor  foundation,  for  this 
prevalent  notion,  which  has  misled  so  many. 
The  comparison  is  not  with  baptism  at  all. 
The  only  comparison  in  the  passage  is  be- 
tween the  crucifixion,  death,  and  burial  of 
Christ,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  mystical  or 
spiritual  crucifixion,  death,  and  burial  of  the 
"old  man,"  ''the  body  of  sin,"  on  the  other 
hand.  In  this  comparison  there  is  force,  be- 
cause here  there  are  points  of  resemblance, 
which,  in  the  bold,  figurative  style  of  the 
apostle,  may  be  traced  so  as  to  justify  the 
analogy,  and  vindicate  the  rhetoric  as  well  as 
the  argument  of  the  inspired  man  of  God. 

Now  we  must  return  to  the  word  ** buried." 
We  have  found  the  subject  of  the  burial,  and 
reached  safe  footing  for  the  assumption  of  its 
figurative  character;  but  we  must  study  the 
figure  a  little  more  fully.  Although  the  bu- 
rial is  figurative,  the  real  idea  of  a  burial 
must  be  carried  out,  in  order  to  justify  the 
figure.  We  therefore  need  a  definition  of 
the  word,  as  much  as  if  the  burial  were  lit- 
eral.    What    is    a   burial?     There   are   many 


256  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

forms  or  modes  of  burial.  Our  impressions 
are  mostly  derived  from  modern  customs. 
We  very  naturally  associate  with  the  word 
buried  the  kindred  thought  of  a  grave,  with 
a  coffin  deposited,  and  earth  shoveled  upon 
it  till. the  grave  is  filled.  But  our  Savior  was 
not  buried  in  this  way.  His  grave  was  a 
room  hewn  in  the  rock — a  room  with  floor, 
walls,  and  ceiling,  so  to  speak — and  large 
enough  to  admit  several  persons;  for  a  num- 
ber of  the  disciples  walked  into  it  after  his 
resurrection.  His  body  was  taken  from  the 
cross  and  placed  in  this  room,  and  the  door 
was  closed  by  rolling  a  large  stone  against  it. 
Such  was  the  burial  of  Christ;  and  the  idea 
of  representing  or  imitating  such  a  burial  by 
a  sudden  dip  of  the  person  in  the  water  and 
out  again,  is  far-fetched,  to  say  the  least  of 
it.  But  still,  regardless  of  mode,  the  word 
has  a  radical  meaning,  which  we  want  to 
ascertain,  if  possible.  Although,  under  the 
Roman  law,  a  legal  burial  might  be  effected 
by  casting  a  handful  of  earth  upon  the  dead 
body,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  apos- 
tle had  this  loose  provision  of  law  in  mind. 
We  must  rather  assume  that   his  idea   of  a 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  257 

burial  accorded  with  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  which  is  to  hide,  to  put  away  out  of 
sight,  to  cover  up.  Let  this,  then,  be  the 
signification  of  the  word  to-day.  It  means  a 
covering  up  out  of  sight.  There  is  no  burial 
where  nothing  is  covered  up. 

But,  if  a  burial  means  that  the  thing  bur- 
ied is  covered  up,  the  thing  covered  must 
be  covered  with  something.  There  must  be 
a  covering — what  is  that?  We  have  found 
the  subject  of  the  burial,  and  now  we  must 
find  the  covering.  The  ''old  man"  is  dead, 
and  the  ''old  man"  is  "buried;"  and  that 
which  is  buried  is  covered  up  out  of  our 
sight,  and  put  away  from  our  fellowship,  as 
effectually  as  are  our  kindred  when  we  bury 
them.  But  what  can  cover  the  "old  man," 
"the  body  of  sin?"  Water  will  not  do  in 
this  case,  for  all  material  elements  are  value- 
less in  such  an  emergency.  Now  that  he  is 
"crucified,"  and  is  therefore  in  the  "like- 
ness" of  Christ's  death,  how  is  his  burial 
"with  Christ"  effected?  Now,  mark  all  the 
steps;  for  we  are  at  a  crucial  point,  one  that 
you  must  not  lose.  Well,  that  which  is  bur- 
ied is  covered  up;  and  it  is  always  covered 
17 


258  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

%vith  that  into  which  it  is  buried.  If  a  man  is 
literally  buried  into  the  earth,  he  is  covered 
with  earth;  if  he  is  buried  into  the  sand, 
the  sand  is  the  covering;  and  if  he  is  buried 
into  the  water,  he  is  covered  with  the  water. 
Now,  how  is  it  with  the  **old  man" — into 
what  is  he  buried?  Not  into  the  earth,  nor 
into  the  sand,  nor  into  the  water;  therefore 
the  covering  in  this  burial  is  not  earth,  nor 
sand,  nor  water.  But  this  is  a  burial  by 
baptism  into  death;  therefore  the  covering  is 
death.  But  what  death  is  this?  There  was 
a  death  which  preceded  the  burial,  a  death 
by  crucifixion;  but  here  is  another  death, 
which  now  becomes  the  covering,  because 
the  burial  is  into  it.  What  death  can  this 
be?  It  is  not  the  death  of  the  body;  for 
even  those  who  insist  on  burying  the  body, 
refuse  to  bury  it  "into  death."  If  they 
should  make  the  death  as  literal  as  they  do 
the  burial,  they  would  drown  every  one  bur- 
ied; but  they  will  not  do  that.  They  prefer 
the  inconsistency  we  have  pointed  out,  and 
the  destruction  of  the  apostle's  rhetoric,  to 
such  a  literal  construction  of  death.  Nor  is 
the  death  which  becomes  the  covering  spirit- 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  259 

ual  death,  or  the  death  in  sin ;  for  the  process 
in  question  is  one  which  breaks  the  power 
of  this  death,  and  releases  the  soul  from  its 
grasp.  Neither  can  it  be  the  "death  unto 
sin;"  for  that,  in  the  order  of  right  concep- 
tion of  the  process,  is  past.  It  was  accom- 
plished by  the  crucifixion.  What,  then,  is 
the  death  into  which  the  old  man  is  buried, 
and  with  which  he  is  covered?  In  order  to 
obtain  the  answer,  we  need  not  leave  the  lan- 
guage before  us.  Right  here  in  the  text  we 
have  it:  ''Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us 
as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  bap- 
tized into  his  death?  Therefore  we  are  buried 
zvith  him,''  etc.  Here  it  is,  so  plain  that  we 
can  not  mistake  the  point.  "Into  his  death;'' 
that  is,  into  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ.  We 
are  baptized  into  his  death,  and  we  are  buried 
by  baptism;  so  that  we  are  buried  into  the 
death  into  which  the  baptism  inducts  us;  and 
this  death  we  know  is  the  only  covering  for 
sin,  the  only  covering  for  the  old  man,  which 
is  the  "body  of  sin."  The  word  "therefore," 
in  the  text,  connects  the  burial  with  the  death 
of  Christ,  and  makes  this  the  only  grammat- 
ical construction.      Here,  then,  is  the  process, 


26o  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

SO  far  as  it  relates  to  the  "old  man:"  The  ''old 
man"  is  crucified  as  Christ  was  crucified;  the 
**old  man"  dies  as  Christ  died;  and  the  *'old 
man"  is  buried  as  Christ  was  buried.  And  as 
the  ''old  man"  is  buried  into  the  death  of 
Christ,  he  is  covered  up  by  that  death.  Like 
as  the  lid  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  over- 
shadowed by  the  cherubim  of  glory,  was  the 
mercy-seat,  which  covered  the  tables  of  the 
law,  so  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ,  the  true 
mercy-seat,  covers  the  sins  of  all  that  are 
"crucified"  with  him.  "Blessed  is  the  man 
whose  sin  is  covered." 

It  has  already  been  said  that  this  burial  is 
not  a  momentary  affair,  but  a  permanent  re- 
sult. I  wish  to  emphasize  this  thought. 
The  burial  is  not  a  ceremony,  but  a  profound 
experience.  It  brings  us  into  a  new  relation 
to  Christ,  a  new  state  of  spiritual  activity, 
and  makes  us  new  creatures.  Olci  things 
pass  away,  and  all  things  become  new.  The 
language  is  not,  "We  were  once  for  a  mo- 
ment buried  with  Christ,"  but,  "  We  air 
buried.''  If  we  are  in  Christ  to-day,  we  are  as 
much  buried  with  him  now  as  we  were  at  the 
hour  of  our  entrance   into  the   "newness  of 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  26 1 

life."  The  aorlst  tense,  here  employed  by 
the  apostle,  alludes  to  past  time,  to  the  period 
of  crucifixion,  death,  and  burial,  but  it  also 
expresses  a  continued  effect.  When  we  say 
of  a  dead  man  that  he  is  buried,  we  allude 
to  a  past  occurrence,  to  the  time  when  the 
burial  took  place;  but  we"  also  include  the 
thought  that  the  man  is  yet  in  the  grave. 
So  this  mystical  burial  was  present  with  Paul 
and  those  to  whom  he  wrote.  And  the  effect 
metaphorically  expressed  by  the  burial  must 
continue.  To  unbury  the  "old  man"  would 
be  to  give  him  back  his  life  and  power,  and 
amount  to  an  apostasy  from  Christ.  He 
must  remain  beneath  the  covering  of  the 
atoning  blood,  so  long  as  we  remain  dead 
unto  sin,  and  our  life  continues  hid  with 
Christ  in  God. 

The  metaphor  of  ''planting"  comes  into 
this  text  by  the  act  of  the  translators,  rather 
than  by  the  apostle.  Paul  was  given  to  the 
use  of  mixed  metaphors;  but  we  could  not 
be  true  to  ourselves,  and  the  text,  if  we  did 
not  remark  that  the  word  sumpktitoty  rendered 
"planted,"  simply  conveys  the  idea  of  uniting 
or  growing  together,  as  in  the  case  of  graft- 


262  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ing,  and  can  only  mean  that  by  crucifixion 
with  Christ,  as  explained,  we  join  Christ  in 
his  death,  and  so  unite  with  him  as  to  share 
its  benefits.  The  whole  idea  is  that  by  this 
process  we  reach  the  "likeness  of  Christ's 
death."  There  is  no  possible  allusion  to  the 
mode  of  baptism  in  any  metaphor  this  word 
may  contain. 

The  analogy  between  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  and  the  "newness  of  life"  does  not 
imply  that  the  burial  ceases.  The  "old  man" 
is  "put  off,"  not  to  be  "put  on"  again. 
The  "new  man"  takes  his  place,  and  comes 
into  the  comparison,  as  soon  as  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ  is  mentioned,  "that  like  as 
Christ  was  raised  up  by  the  glory  of  the  Fa- 
ther, even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness 
of  life."  The  "newness  of  Hfe"  is  the  proper 
antithesis  to  the  death  and  burial  of  the  "old 
man;"  just  as  the  putting  on  of  the  "new 
man  "  is  the  antithesis  of  the  putting  off  of  the 
"old  man,"  in  the  other  passages  cited;  and 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  not  symbolized  in 
the  passage,  but  is  itself  made  the  symbol  or 
pattern,  as  well  as  the  source,  of  the  newness 
of  life  to  the  believer.     How  different  is  all 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  263 

this  from  the  immersionist  rendering-,  which 
virtually  says  ''that  like  as  Christ  was  raised 
up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  must  our  bodies  be  raised  out  of  the 
water  by  the  arm  of  the  preacher!" 

All  this  exposition,  as  far  as  developed,  is 
corroborated  by  the  other  passage  which 
speaks  of  burial  in  connection  with  baptism. 
I  refer  to  Colossians  ii,  10-12:  **And  ye  are 
complete  in  him,  which  is  the  head  of  all 
principality  and  power:  in  whom  also  ye  are 
circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  with- 
out hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins 
of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ: 
buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye 
are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from 
the  dead."  Here  is  the  same  experience, 
implying  the  same  process,  and  reaching  the 
same  result.  Here  we  find  the  same  "old 
man,"  though  not  named,  to  be  **put  off" — 
"the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh."  But 
here  the  mxCtaphor  of  circumcision  is  brought 
in,  and  that  of  crucifixion  omitted.  The  rite 
of  circumcision  becomes  the  illustration  of  the 
putting   off  of   the   body   of   the  sins  of  the 


264  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

flesh.  ''In  whom  ye  are  circumcised,"  is 
just  as  positive,  and  as  hteral,  as  the  burial. 
But  there  is  no  comparison  drawn  between 
the  manner  of  circumcising  and  the  result 
attained;  neither  is  there  any  comparison 
between  the  manner  of  baptizing  and  the 
result  reached,  which  is  the  burial.  We  can 
not  argue  from  the  burial  to  the  manner 
of  baptizing,  any  more  than  we  can  argue 
from  the  "putting  off  the  sins  of  the  flesh" 
to  the  manner  of  the  circumcision.  The 
circumcision  is  not  literal,  for  it  is  a  ''cir- 
cumcision made  without  hands ;"  that  is, 
a  spiritual  circumcision,  or  the  result  which 
circumcision,  when  taken  in  its  spiritual  im- 
port, always  indicates.  So  the  "burial"  is 
not  literal,  but  spiritual;  that  is,  it  is  a  spirit- 
ual result,  which  answers  to  the  religious 
meaning  and  design  of  baptism,  and  not  to 
its  mode  or  outward  form.  The  "putting 
off"  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  in 
this  passage,  is  the  same  as  the  "crucifixion 
of  the  old  man,"  and  the  destruction  of  the 
"body  of  sin,"  in  the  text  in  Romans.  In 
one  place  the  body  of  sin  is  put  to  death  and 
buried,  in  the  other  it  is   "put  off;"    in  one 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  265 

place  the  burial  is  associated  with  "cruci- 
fixion," in  the  other  with  "circumcision." 
In  neither  place  is  the  mode  of  baptism 
brought  into  the  comparison,  and  in  neither 
place  does  the  "old  man"  rise;  but  in  both 
places  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  made 
the  pattern  and  pledge  of  newness  of  life: 
*  *  Wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him, 
through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God" — 
not  by  the  muscular  power  of  the  preacher's 
arm !  The  truth  is  that,  here  in  Colossians, 
the  two  rites,  circumcision  and  baptism,  are 
so  blended  in  the  illustration  of  this  wonder- 
ful experience  as  to  demonstrate  the  identity 
of  their  import,  and  to  bring  out  the  spiritual 
signification  of  each.  The  circumcision  with- 
out hands  is  just  as  physical  as  is  the  burial 
in  or  by  baptism.  The  preposition  expresses 
agency. 

The  tenacity  with  which  men  hold  their 
traditional  notions  of  a  text  which  has  been 
used  to  bolster  cherished  prejudices  is  most 
wonderful.  Hence,  we  must  look  again  at 
this  language.  Here  is  the  pronoun  "we.' 
The  apostle  says,  "We  are  buried;"  and 
does   not   this   refer  to  the  persons  baptized, 


266  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

simply  as  men?  Well,  yes;  the  whole  expe- 
rience is  wrought  within  the  person.  The 
"old  man"  is  ''oiiroXA  man;"  and  when  ''our 
old  man  is  crucified,"  we  are  crucified;  and 
when  he  dies,  we  die  to  sin;  and  when  he  is 
buried  into  Christ's  death,  we  are  buried.  Yes ; 
and  when  the  ''newness  of  life"  is  raised  up  in 
us,  we  are  risen  with  Christ.  Just  so,  when 
the  ''old  man  is  put  off,"  we  put  him  off; 
and  when  the  new  man  is  "put  on,"  we  put 
him  on ;  and  we  are  the  new  creation.  Our 
identity  remains;  but  all  this  does  not  make 
the  "old  man"  and  the  "new  man"  the 
same  thing;  nor  do  they  occupy  the  same 
place  in  the  metaphorical  representations  of 
the  apostle.  Paul  uses  the  pronoun  else- 
where quite  as  emphatically,  when  no  one 
will  imagine  for  a  moment  that  he  had  any 
physical  action  on  his  person  in  view.  Read 
Galatians  ii,  20:  "I  am  crucified  with  Christ: 
nevertheless  I  live;  yet  not  I,  but  Christ 
liveth  in  me :  for  the  life  which  I  now  live  in 
the  flesh  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of 
God,  who  loved  me,  and  gave  himself  for 
me."  Here  is  the  same  thought.  "I  am 
crucified" — not    literally,    nor    is    the   whole 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISxM.  267 

person  the  subject  of  the  crucifixion;  but,  as 
he  more  definitely  states  in  Romans,  the  "old 
man "  is  crucified,  dead,  and  buried  wtth 
Christ,  and  the  new  man,  or  newness  of  life, 
the  life  of  faith  in  the  Son  of  God,  ensues. 
Turn  as  you  will,  you  can  not  escape  this 
style  of  thought.  This  personification  of  the 
carnal  nature,  and  the  metaphorical  cruci- 
fixion, death,  and  burial  of  the  "old  man," 
is  the  key  to  much  that  is  otherwise  obscure 
in  these  Epistles,  and,  when  clearly  appre- 
hended, it  unlocks  many  mysteries,  and  sheds 
a  flood  of  light  upon  some  knotty  questions 
in  theology,  in  regard  to  the  deepest  expe- 
riences of  the  divine  life.  The  experience  it 
unfolds  is  vital.  Unless  the  "old  man"  is  cru- 
cified with  Christ,  dead  and  buried  with  him, 
so  that  "we"  are  brought  or  grafted  into  his 
death,  we  can  have  no  fellowship  with  Christ, 
and  must  fail  to  reach  the  likeness  of  his 
resurrection.  We  can  not,  therefore,  afford 
to  fritter  away  a  truth  so  important  and  pre- 
cious as  this;  and  it  does  seem  to  me  that 
to  reduce  this  crucifixion,  death,  and  burial 
with  Christ  "into  his  death,"  to  a  sudden 
dip  of  the   body  in  water  and  out  again,   is 


268  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

little  short  of  handling  the  Word  of  God 
deceitfully. 

But  here  is  another  question — one  which 
you  have,  perhaps,  anticipated :  What  has  bap- 
tism to  do  with  this  burial?  Or  perhaps  the 
real  question  is,  Why  is  this  effect,  this  con- 
summation of  the  death  unto  sin,  ascribed  to 
baptism,  as  the  agent  of  its  accomplishment? 
We  must  weigh,  this  point  well;  for  you  see 
that  it  reaches  the  heart  of  the  subject. 

This  will  also  suggest  the  question  as  to 
what  baptism  is  intended,  whether  the  out- 
ward rite  or  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  but  I 
shall  cheerfully  accept  the  statement  that  the 
word  is  to  be  taken  in  its  most  obvious 
sense — that  it  means  the  ordinance  estab- 
lished in  the  Church,  to  be  administered  by 
the  use  of  water,  wherever  the  Gospel  is 
preached.  Some  insist  that  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit  is  meant,  and  that  water  is  not  in 
the  passage.  I  make  no  point  of  this  kind. 
The  truth  is  never  advanced  by  the  assump- 
tion of  extreme  ground  in  its  defense,  not 
warranted  by  the  facts,  or  the  force  of  the 
words  employed.  The  word  baptize  occurs 
a  few  times  in   the   Scriptures   in  connection 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  269 

with  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  so  that  there  is 
a  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  real 
baptism,  of  which  that  with  water  is  but  the 
symbol,  or  outward  expression.  But  it  is 
probable  that  the  Avord  baptism  passes  over 
from  the  outward  rite  to  the  inward  work,  as 
a  metaphor,  because  of  the  relation  between 
the  ordinance  and  that  which  it  represents. 
This  relation  is  not  accidental,  nor  is  it  tem- 
porary or  variable.  It  is  a  relation  chosen  by 
divine  wisdom,  and  established  by  divine  or- 
dination, and  is  therefore  definite,  fixed,  and 
unalterable.  When  this  thought  is  properly 
developed,  it  will  show  at  once  why  the  work 
of  the  Spirit  is  called  a  baptism,  and  why  the 
whole  work  of  salvation,  which  is  wrought 
only  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  ascribed  to 
baptism. 

In  order  to  the  development  of  this  foun- 
dation principle,  you  must  indulge  a  seeming 
digression.  The  work  of  salvation  is  divided, 
so  to  speak,  into  two  departments.  The  first 
relates  to  the  law  of  God,  and  our  relation  to 
the  law,  as  sinners;  and,  for  the  purpose  of 
distinguishing  it,  we  call  this  the  legal  aspect 
of  the  scheme.     The  other  department  relates 


270  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

to  ourselves,  to  our  interior  state  or  condi 
tion,  as  depraved  persons;  and  this  we  may 
designate  the  moral  aspect  of  salvation.  As 
sinners,  we  are  under  the  law,  under  its 
curse,  and  liable  to  all  its  maledictions;  and, 
within  ourselves,  we  are  spiritually  blind,  de- 
praved, dead.  To  effect  our  deliverance  from 
this  twofold  helplessness,  is  the  purpose  of 
the  plan  of  salvation  revealed  in  the  Gospel. 
In  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  work  of  saving 
us  must  have  a  twofold  bearing;  it  must  af- 
fect our  relation  to  the  law,  and  it  must  work 
a  transformation  in  our  spiritual  natures. 
Accordingly,  to  meet  this  twofold  demand, 
there  are  two  distinct  personal  agents  re- 
vealed, each  engaged  in  his  own  appropriate 
department;  namely,  the  Son  of  God,  and 
the  Spirit  of  God.  All  that  pertains  to  re- 
demption, properly  speaking,  or  that  concerns 
our  relation  to  the  divine  law,  is  done  by  the 
Son  of  God  himself,  in  his  personal  agency; 
and  all  that  relates  to  our  inward  condition, 
or  that  affects  our  interior  state  or  spiritual 
life,  is  done  by  the  personal  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Hence,  every  particular  act  or 
element    of    the    work    of    salvation    that    is 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  2/1 

expressed  in  the  Scriptures  by  a  forensic 
term,  is  ascribed  to  Christ,  and  belongs  to 
the  legal  aspect  of  the  scheme;  and  every 
other  part — that  is,  all  that  relates  to  the  in- 
ward work,  as  enlightening,  quickening,  re- 
generating, renewing,  etc. — is  ascribed  to  the 
Spirit,  and  belongs  to  the  moral  aspect  of 
the  scheme.  This  distinction  is  not  arbi- 
trary, nor  is  this  distribution  of  the  work  and 
classification  of  terms  an  accidental  or  ficti- 
tious arrangement.  The  recognition  of  it  is 
necessary  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the 
ordinances,  and  to  right  conceptions  of  many 
theological  points  connected  with  Christian 
experience.  It  is  a  distinction  and  distribu- 
tion founded  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  es- 
tablished by  the  wisdom  and  eternal  purpose 
of  Him  who  worketh  all  things  after  the 
counsel  of  his  own  will. 

These  two  aspects  of  the  plan  of  salvation, 
and  the  twofold  work,  were  prefigured  under 
the  former  dispensation.  Pointing  to  our 
salvation  from  sin,  in  its  twofold  aspects, 
were  two  classes  of  typical  services;  namely, 
bloody  sacrifices  and  watery  ablutions.  These 
related   respectively  to   the   redeeming  blood 


2/2  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

of  Christ  and  to  the  cleansing  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  lasted  till  Christ  died  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  given.  Then  all  the  typ- 
ical bloody  sacrifices  were  fulfilled  in  Christ, 
and  all  the  typical  washings  with  water  were 
fulfilled  in  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
This  done,  and  the  typical  services  were  no 
longer  in  place.  Their  meaning  was  lost  in 
their  fulfillment;  but,  in  their  stead,  two  serv- 
ices were  instituted,  adapted  to  the  new  dis- 
pensation—  the  one  a  commemorative  rite, 
pointing  to  the  blood  of  Christ,  already  shed; 
and  the  other  a  symbolic  ordinance,  pointing 
to  the  purifying  influence  of  the  Spirit  of 
God.  The  Lord's-supper  recalls  to  the  mem- 
ory of  the  Church  precisely  that  which  was 
prefigured  by  the  bloody  sacrifices  of  the 
law;  and  Christian  baptism  symbolizes  that 
which  the  old  watery  ablutions  adumbrated. 
There  is,  therefore,  a  fixed,  definite,  un- 
changeable relation  between  the  Lord's-sup- 
per and  the  official  work  of  the  Redeemer. 
In  this  service,  Christ's  death  is  distinctively 
shown  forth.  It  relates  to  Christ  and  to  his 
work  alone.  The  bread  and  wine  are  the 
symbols   of   redemption.     The   Lord's-supper 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  2/3 

is  the  sacrament  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  re- 
lates to  the  legal  aspect  of  salvation;  and 
there  is  an  equally  direct  and  permanent  rela- 
tion between  the  ordinance  of  baptism  and 
the  Holy  Spirit.  The  water  of  baptism  is 
the  ordained  emblem  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
working  salvation  within  the  soul.  This  is 
its  invariable  meaning  and  design.  Apart 
from  this  it  is  without  authority,  and  without 
sense  or  significance.  Baptism  is  therefore 
the  sacrament  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  work 
of  the  Spirit  is  the  foundation  of  the  ordi- 
nance; and  baptism  derives  all  its  meaning, 
efficacy,  and  value  from  its  relation  to  the 
Spirit,  which  it  represents.  It  is  on  this  ac- 
count that  the  work  of  the  Spirit  is  some- 
times ascribed  to  baptism,  and  that  the  word 
baptism  is  applied  to  the  Spirit,  and  used  to 
denote  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  This  is  done 
by  an  easy  figure  of  speech,  in  which  cause 
and  effect,  and  symbol  and  the  thing  symbol- 
ized, are  rhetorically  interchanged — a  figure 
which  is  familiar  to  all  students  of  the  Bible, 
and  misleads  no  one. 

This    arrangement   of   the    ordinances    can 
not  be  reversed.     The  Lord's-supper  does  not 
i8 


274  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

relate  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  not  an  emblem 
of  the  Spirit,  and  can  not  be  made  to  repre- 
sent the  work  of  the  Spirit.  If  applied  to 
the  work  of  the  Spirit,  its  meaning  is  lost. 
It  has  its  origin,  its  foundation,  and  its  mean- 
ing in  the  official  work  of  Jesus  Christ  in  our 
redemption.  So,  on  the  other  hand,  baptism 
never  relates  to  the  Son,  but  always  to  the 
Spirit  of  God.  It  is  not  the  symbol  or  em- 
blem of  the  work  of  the  Son,  and  loses  its 
meaning,  and  is  perverted,  the  moment  it  is 
employed  in  emblematical  representation  of 
what  he  did  or  suffered.  Fidelity  to  truth 
demands  this  demolition  of  the  foundation  of 
the  immersionists'  use  of  the  text  before  us; 
for  just  here  is  their  fearful  mistake.  Labor- 
ing under  the  erroneous  impression  that  bap- 
tism might  symbolize  the  death  and  burial 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  immersion- 
ists have  habitually  forced  this  ordinance  into 
a  service  it  was  never  intended  to  perform. 
Losing  sight  of  his  death  by  crucifixion,  and 
of  his  burial  by  being  laid  in  a  rocky  sepul- 
cher — a  room  with  door  and  walls — they  have 
imagined  a  resemblance  between  the  burial 
of  Christ  and  the  immersion  of  the  body  in 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  2/5 

water,  and  between  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
and  the  Hfting  of  the  body  out  of  the  water; 
and  upon  this  forced  analogy,  without  foun- 
dation in  fact  or  authority  in  Scripture,  they 
have  erected  their  exclusive  superstructure, 
which  can  only  stand  by  robbing  this  apos- 
tolical description  of  the  mystical  crucifixion, 
death,  and  burial,  which  destroys  the  reigning 
power  of  the  *'old  man,"  of  its  real  meaning, 
and  reducing  the  profoundest  experience  of 
the  regenerated  soul  to  the  mere  form  of  an 
ordinance,  and  perverting  that  ordinance  by 
thrusting  it  into  the  place  of  the  Lord's-sup- 
per!  Misguided  by  this  false  light,  multi- 
tudes have  supposed  that  they  have  been 
''buried  with  Christ,"  and  met  the  require- 
ments of  this  Scripture,  when  they  have 
looked  no  further  than  to  the  physical  cov- 
ering of  their  bodies  in  water,  without  cruci- 
fixion or  death!  The  consequences  of  such 
radical  error  are  too  numerous  and  grave  to 
be  passed  over  mincingly. 

We  must  retain  the  ordinances  in  their 
appropriate  places,  and  give  them  distinct- 
ively their  appointed  significations,  if  we 
would   understand   them  or  use   them  to  edi- 


2/6  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

fication.  The  Lord's-supper  represents  the 
death  of  Christ,  and  baptism  does  not.  Bap- 
tism represents  the  Holy  Spirit  in  purifying 
the  heart,  and  the  Lord's-supper  does  not. 
Baptism  is  the  "sign  of  regeneration,"  the 
symbol  of  the  inward  spiritual  washing  that 
takes  away  our  defilements  and  makes  us  one 
with  the  Lord.  Taken  out  of  this  relation, 
and  despoiled  of  this  design,  it  is  meaning- 
less and  void;  and  when  divorced  from  its 
legitimate  work,  and  forced  into  an  unnatural 
service,  what  wonder  that  it  becomes  a  mys- 
tery, a  snare,  a  mere  form  and  tinsel  in  the 
Church,  according  to  the  caprice  of  men! 

Now  we  have  reached  the  place  for  answer- 
ing the  question  as  to  what  baptism  has  to 
do  with  the  burial.  Understanding  the  rela- 
tion between  baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  explanation  of  the  relation  of  baptism 
to  the  "burial"  of  the  "old  man"  into  the 
death  of  Christ  is  natural  and  easy.  The 
work  of  crucifying  the  "old  man"  is  done  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  No  other  power  could  nail 
him  to  the  cross.  The  death  unto  sin,  the 
result  of  the  crucifixion,  is  by  the  same 
agency.      No    one   will    dispute    this.     What 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  277 

then?  Why,  the  burial  is  but  the  consum- 
mation of  the  same  process.  But,  if  so,  this 
entire  work  of  conquering  the  "old  man" 
and  destroying  the  "body  of  sin"  is  really 
done  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Here  the  ground 
is  firm.  But  why  is  all  this  ascribed  to  bap- 
tism? The  reason  is  in  the  sense  in  which 
it  is  ascribed,  which  is  now  apparent.  It  is 
all  explained  by  the  relation  between  baptism 
and  the  Spirit.  The  effect,  which  is  wrought 
by  the  Spirit,  is  ascribed  to  baptism  by  an 
easy  figure  of  speech,  in  which  the  symbol 
is  named  for  the  thing  symbolized.  This  is 
the  whole  of  it.  No  other  explanation  has 
ever  been  given  that  obviates  absurdities,  and 
at  the  same  time  harmonizes  the  language 
and  all  the  facts. 

This  position  may  be  illustrated  by  the  lan- 
guage of  Christ  with  reference  to  the  other 
ordinance.  When  the  Savior  instituted  the 
Supper,  he  broke  the  bread  and  gave  it  to 
his  disciples,  saying,  "Take,  eat;  this  is  my 
body."  It  was  not  his  body;  but  then  it 
was  the  emblem  of  his  body,  and  was  to 
stand  for  his  body,  in  that  sense,  till  the  end 
of  time.      He   added   the  words:    "Which   is 


2/8  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

given  for  you."  It  was  not  yet  given,  for  he 
had  not  yet  died;  but,  in  his  unchangeable 
purpose,  the  consecration  was  made.  "Like- 
wise after  supper  he  took  the  cup,  and  gave 
it  to  his  disciples,  saying,  Drink  ye  all  of 
this."  He  did  not  mean  that  they  should 
drink  the  cup,  but  that  Avhich  was  in  the 
cup.  Then  he  added:  "For  this  is  my  blood 
of  the  new  testament,  which  is  shed  for  many 
for  the  remission  of  sins."  It  was  not  his 
blood  literally,  but  only  the  fruit  of  the  vine; 
nor  was  his  blood  yet  shed,  for  he  had  not 
yet  been  crucified;  but  then  the  relation  be- 
tween the  bread  and  wine  and  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  then  established,  to  abide 
through  all  the  future,  explains  and  justifies 
the  language.  It  was  a  figure  of  speech  in 
which  the  container  was  put  for  the  contained, 
the  emblem  for  that  which  it  represented. 
Nothing  is  more  common  in  language,  or 
more  beautiful  in  rhetoric;  and  this  is  pre- 
cisely the  way  the  apostle  Paul  ascribes  to 
baptism  that  Avhich  was  really  wrought  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  In  one  place  it  is  said» 
"This  is  my  body,"  when  it  was  only  the 
emblem  of  the  body;   and  in  the  other  place 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  279 

it  is  said,  ''By  baptism,"  when  it  was  by 
that  which  baptism  always  impHes  and  rep- 
resents. The  figure  of  speech  is  the  same; 
and  that  the  whole  process  of  induction  into 
Christ  is  by  the  Spirit,  is  too  plain  to  need 
proof  The  apostle  elsewhere  says:  "For  by 
one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body, 
and  have  all  been  made  to  drink  into  one 
Spirit" 

And  now,  brethren,  I  have  given  my  an- 
swer to  the  question  concerning  the  relation 
of  ''baptism"  to  the  "burial,"  and  flatter 
myself  that  the  view  presented  meets  all  the 
conditions  of  the  case,  and  unfolds  the  mean- 
ing and  design  of  the  two  ordinances,  with 
their  respective  foundations,  and  manifests  the 
folly  of  Romanism  in  multiplying  the  sacra- 
ments beyond  the  number  ordained  by  the 
Lord  Jesus,  as  no  antagonistic  interpretation 
has  ever  done.  And  you  will  permit  me 
to  express  the  belief  that  this  exposition, 
however  imperfectly  presented,  rescues  these 
somewhat  famous  Scriptures  from  most  fright- 
ful abuse,  and  reveals  in  them  a  beauty  and 
force  and  depth  of  meaning  w^hich  can  never 
be   seen   so    long   as    the   mode   of   baptismal 


280  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

administration  is  regarded  as  the  central 
thought,  or  allowed  to  have  any  thing  to 
do  with  this  highly  figurative  language.  In 
fact,  the  mode  of  baptism  is  not  mentioned 
or  alluded  to,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  this 
whole  argument,  and  has  no  pertinency  to 
the  subject,  while  the  design  and  spiritual 
meaning  of  baptism  come  in  naturally,  and 
explain  the  allusion.  I  bring  nothing  fanciful 
or  far-fetched,  nor  do  I  seek  to  capture  your 
concurrence  by  any  brilliancy  of  rhetoric  or 
display  of  elaborate  criticism ;  but  I  lay  be- 
fore you  what  seems  to  me  the  most  natural 
explanation,  and  the  plainest  that  will  bring 
out  the  beauty  and  force  of  the  passage. 

I  know  that  commentators,  and  men  emi- 
nent for  piety  and  learning,  have  accepted 
the  statement  that  these  Scriptures  allude  to 
immersion;  but  I  know,  also,  that  most  of 
those  have  been  absorbed  in  other  great 
issues,  which  they  treated  critically,  while 
they  looked  upon  the  mode  of  baptism  as 
an  incidental  matter,  of  no  vital  significance, 
and  passed  over  it  by  simply  following  in  the 
footsteps  of  trusted  authors.  I  therefore  re- 
spectfully decline  permitting  the  authority  of 


BURIED  BY  BAPTISM.  28 1 

great  names  to  weigh  aught  in  opposition  to 
the  well  ascertained  sense  of  the  inspired  rec- 
ord. I  do  not  beheve  it  in  the  power  of 
human  learning,  ingenuity,  or  skill  to  find 
the  mode  of  baptism  here,  without  distorting 
the  sense,  and  doing  violence  to  the  apostle's 
most  striking  conception  of  the  death  unto 
sin.  I  leave  the  subject  with  you,  and  pray 
that  the  light  of  divine  truth  may  shine  into 
our  hearts  until  the  mists  of  error  and  the 
film  of  prejudice  shall  be  removed  from  our 
mental  and  spiritual  vision. 


282  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


Discourse  IX. 

SPIRIT  BAPTISM. 

"He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with 
fire." — Matt,  hi,  ii. 

THE  abruptness  of  the  record  introducing 
the  ministry  of  John,  by  simply  an- 
nouncing that  he  came  preaching  in  the  wil- 
derness of  Judea,  and  that  Jerusalem,  and  all 
Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan, 
went  out  to  him,  and  were  baptized,  has  been 
mentioned  in  preceding  discourses.  The  more 
we  think  upon  it,  the  more  we  are  impressed 
that  the  rite  of  baptism  was  not  new  to  the 
Jewish  people.  They  had  in  some  way  be- 
come familiar  with  it,  and  readily  appre- 
hended the  import  of  John's  preaching,  and 
the  significance  of  the  rite  which  he  admin- 
istered. 

Another    point    is    evident.      These    Jews 
were  believers  in  the  divine  authority  of  the 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  283 

law  of  Moses,  and  were  professing  and  cher- 
ishing the  strictest  loyalty  to  that  law,  even 
while  submitting  to  the  baptism  of  John. 
They  must  therefore  have  regarded  the  bap- 
tism of  John  as  being  entirley  consistent  with 
the  law,  if  not  as  legitimately  deducible  from 
it.  It  is  not  supposable  that  there  either 
was,  or  was  thought  to  be,  any  departure 
from  the  law,  in  accepting  John  as  a  prophet, 
and  his  baptism  as  an  institution  of  strictly 
Jewish  origin  and  import.  We  must  there- 
fore look  into  the  habits  and  thoughts  of  the 
Jews,  to  ascertain  the  light  in  which  they 
looked  upon  this  baptism,  and  how  they  so 
readily  accepted  it  as  compatible  with  their 
allegiance  to  Moses,  and  the  ceremonies 
which  they  received  from  him,  and  from 
their  fathers. 

We  do  not  find  the  word  baptism  in  the 
law.  It  does  not  appear  to  have  come  into 
use  until  after  the  captivity  in  Babylon,  as  the 
term  by  which  to  designate  the  ceremonial 
washings  enjoined  by  the  law.  But  there  is 
no  trouble  in  tracing  the  use  of  this  word,  in 
this  connection,  in  the  later  Jewish  history. 
The  use  of  the  word  in  the  Apocrypha,  and 


284  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

in  the  New  Testament,  with  reference  to  the 
Jewish  washings,  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 
In  a  former  discourse,  we  found  it  used  in 
the  Apocrypha  with  reference  to  the  cere- 
mony of  ''washing  from  a  dead  body." 
"He  that  washeth  himself  from  a  dead  body, 
and  toucheth  it  again,  what  availeth  his  wash- 
ing?" (Ecclesiasticus  xxxiv,  25)  Here  are 
two  words  rendered  wash  in  the  same  verse, 
and  with  reference  to  the  same  ceremony. 
The  last  one  is  the  usual  generic  term  for 
washings  of  all  kinds,  without  respect  to 
mode,  and  the  first  one  is  baptizo — a  word 
which  agrees  with  loiio,  so  far  as  mode  is 
concerned,  but  conveyed  to  the  Jewish  mind 
the  additional  idea  of  a  religious  act,  or  cer- 
emonial cleansing;  and  this  was  the  real 
nature  of  the  washing  to  which  it  relates  in 
this  place.  Such  a  use  of  the  word  proves 
that  at  least  a  portion  of  the  legal  washings 
among  the  Jews  were  known  as  baptisms. 
And  this  fact  is  confirmed  by  the  passage  in 
Mark  vii,  3,  4,  where  it  is  said  that  the 
"Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they 
wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the 
tradition  of  the  elders.     And  when  they  come 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  285 

from  the  market,  except  they  baptize,  they  eat 
not.  And  many  other  things  there  be,  which 
they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  baptism  of 
cups,  and  pots,  brasen  vessels,  and  of  tables." 
No  one  doubts  that  these  were  religious 
washings,  and  had  respect  to  the  ceremonial 
law  concerning  contact  with  unclean  persons. 
The  Jews  thought  themselves  liable  to  contact 
with  the  unclean  in  market-places;  and  as  a 
precautionary  measure,  to  avoid  uncleanness 
in  the  eye  of  the  law,  they  adopted  the  prac- 
tice of  purifying  or  washing  themselves  cere- 
monially, after  all  occasions  of  exposure;  and 
these  ''washings"  were  called  baptisms.  Of 
course  they  were  not  immersions.  All  the 
circumstances  forbid  that  supposition,  and  the 
law  they  were  following  did  not  demand  im- 
mersion. But  they  were  baptisms,  never- 
theless. 

I  would  also  briefly  recall  the  use  of  the 
word  baptisms  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
where  the  application  is  to  the  legal  washings 
of  the  Jews.  "Which  stood  only  in  meats 
and  drinks,  and  divers  baptisms  \_diaphoris 
baptismois\  and  carnal  ordinances,  imposed 
on    them    until    the    time    of    reformation." 


286  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

(Hebrews  ix,  lo.)  Here  the  "baptisms"  are 
*' divers,"  numerous,  and  of  different  kinds; 
and  they  are  not  the  superfluous  baptisms 
voluntarily  practiced  by  the  Jews,  or  enjoined 
by  tradition,  but  they  are  such  as  the  law 
** imposed"  upon  them.  The  allusion  is  to 
the  whole  list  of  watery  ablutions  required 
by  the  law  of  Moses.  Of  this  there  can  be 
no  mistake.  And  in  writing  this  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  the  author  of  it  was  careful 
to  use  terms  that  Jews  would  understand, 
and  to  give  such  interpretations  of  the  law  as 
would  stand  the  test  of  Jewish  criticism. 
Otherwise,  his  whole  purpose  would  have 
been  thwarted.  It  is  therefore  preposterous 
to  entertain  a  doubt  that  the  Jews  had  come 
to  know  all  their  ceremonial  uses  of  water 
under  the  law  by  the  general  name  of  bap- 
tisms. This  is  corroborated  by  their  practice 
of  baptizing  proselytes,  both  before  and  after 
the  Christian  era.  We  can  not  believe  that 
they  would  adopt  this  practice  from  Chris- 
tians; and  to  suppose  they  first  learned  it 
from  John  does  not  account  for  their  prompt- 
ness in  accepting  a  new  rite  at  the  hand  of 
John.     All  the  facts  in  Jewish  history,  before 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  287 

and  since  the  coming  of  Christ,  conspire  with 
wonderful  naturahiess  and  irresistible  force  to 
prove  that  the  Jews  were  acquainted  with  bap- 
tism before  John  began  to  preach  it  in  the  wil- 
derness. But  if  so,  if  they  knew  it  at  all,  they 
knew  it  as  the  religious  use  of  water,  as  pre- 
scribed by  the  law;  and  then  this  reference 
to  the  "divers  baptisms"  is  perfectly  natural, 
proper,  and  easily  understood.  Then,  admitting 
that  the  Jews  were  thus  acquainted  with  the  rite, 
we  can  explain  the  abruptness  of  the  record 
of  the  opening  of  John's  ministry,  and  also 
the  readiness  of  the  popular  acceptance  of 
the  rite  of  baptism.  But  all  this  takes  us 
back  to  the  law,  to  find  out  the  manner  of 
using  the  water  in  those  ceremonial  washings 
called  baptisms.  The  exclusive  immersionist 
can  not  afford  to  admit  that  any  one  of  these 
washings  was  performed  otherwise  than  by 
immersion;  and  yet  he  is  unable  to  find  a 
single  one  in  all  the  law  where  immersion 
was  required.  On  the  contrary,  he  finds  that 
in  every  instance,  where  the  manner  of  using 
the  water  is  prescribed  at  all,  it  is  by  sprink- 
ling; and  he  finds,  furthermore,  that  in  every 
case,    where    sprinkling   is    not   required,   the 


288  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

use  of  the  water  is  expressed  by  a  generic 
word  which  does  not  express  mode  at  all. 
Alas  for  immersion,  if  the  baptisms  of  the 
New  Testament  correspond  with  the  "divers 
baptisms"  of  the  law! 

The  manner  of  the  passing  away  of  the 
legal  services  of  the  former  dispensation  has 
been  hinted  at;  but  here  we  ought  to  look 
directly  at  it.  The  sacrifices  of  the  law  were 
not  arbitrarily  set  aside,  but  their  typical  im- 
port was  first  met  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son 
of  God  himself  Then  the  typical  sacrifices 
became  obsolete,  and  were  allowed  to  cease. 
The  feast  of  the  passover  was  not  rejected 
and  arbitrarily  abolished.  The  Savior  hon- 
ored it  with-  his  presence,  and  celebrated  it 
with  his  disciples,  and  then  quietly  trans- 
formed it  into  the  commemorative  rite  which 
was  appointed  to  be  the  memorial  of  his 
death  till  his  coming  again.  He  might  have 
told  the  disciples  that  the  paschal  lamb  had 
lost  its  significance,  and  that  the  feast  should 
cease  forever;  and  he  might  have  devised 
something  entirely  new  as  the  memorial  of 
his  death;  but  he  chose  to  merge  the  feast 
of  the  law  into  the  eucharistic   feast,  to  be 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  289 

perpetuated  to  the  end  of  time.  And  the 
watery  ablutions  of  the  law  might  have  been 
all  set  aside  by  the  word  of  the  Master.  He 
could  have  shown  that  the  moral  cleansing 
which  they  represented  was  effected  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  that  a  new  dispensation  of 
the  Spirit  was  at  hand,  so  that  all  typical 
washings  would  be  out  of  place ;  but  he  chose 
to  do  nothing  of  the  kind.  He  took  those 
washings,  which  were  now  known  as  bap- 
tisms, just  as  he  found  them,  and  honored 
them  by  obedience,  only  refusing  to  obey  the 
traditions  which  had  been  added  by  the 
'*  elders, "  and  then  merged  them  all  into 
"one  baptism,"  Avhich  he  ordained  as  the 
symbol  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  made  it  the 
sign  of  regeneration — the  emblem.atic  washing 
of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

The  importance  of  observing  this  order  of 
the  two  Christian  ordinances  was  set  forth  in 
the  last  discourse.  We  saw  that  one  is  the 
sacrament  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  relates  to 
the  redemption  of  men  from  the  curse  of  the 
law,  and  derives  its  meaning  and  value  from 
its  relation  to  Christ,  and  not  from  the  manner 
19 


290  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

of  its  administration.  And  we  saw  that  the 
other  has  its  foundation,  its  meaning  and  sig- 
nificance, in  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit; 
and  that  it  relates  to  the  moral  aspect  of  the 
Gospel  scheme  of  saving  men,  and  is  em- 
phatically the  ordinance  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
We  can  not  too  strongly  insist  upon  this  ar- 
rangement of  the  sacraments.  It  is  not 
arbitrary,  nor  is  it  guess-work.  It  is  founded 
in  the  essential  nature  of  the  ordinances,  and 
is  fundamental  in  the  Gospel  economy.  It 
is  a  distinction  that  obtained  under  the  law, 
and  continues  under  the  Gospel,  and  it  is 
but  simple  justice  to  recognize  its  true  bear- 
ing in  this  general  discussion;  for  without  it 
neither  the  foundation  of  the  ordinances  can 
be  comprehended,  nor  the  relation  of  the 
dispensations  traced. 

We  come  back,  then,  to  the  primary  as- 
sumption, that  John's  baptism  was  in  keeping 
with  Jewish  rites;  that  it  had  a  religious  im- 
port which  the  Jews  could  understand;  that 
it  corresponded  to  the  washings  of  the  law, 
in  that  it  was  a  ceremonial  cleansing,  signify- 
ing a  purification  of  the  soul  and  of  the  life; 
and   that   the   water   which   was   used   in  the 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  29 1 

ceremony  was  used  in  the  way  of  ordinary 
religious  washings  or  baptisms  enjoined  in 
the  law.  This  baptism  Jesus  Christ  himself 
received,  though  not  in  its  ordinary  accept- 
ance as  a  baptism  of  repentance.  It  was 
capable  of  adaptation  to  the  exceptional  case 
of  our  Lord,  and  even  in  this  adaptation  it 
still  kept  within  the  ''righteousness  of  the 
law,"  for  it  fulfilled  a  "righteousness"  which 
must  have  had  respect  to  the  law.  It  was  a 
Jewish  washing,  and  stood  as  a  connecting 
link  between  the  legal  washings  of  the  Jews, 
the  ''divers  baptisms,"  and  the  "one  bap- 
tism "  of  the  Christian  economy.  But  John's 
baptism,  and  the  "divers  baptisms,"  and  all 
baptisms  practiced  by  the  Jews,  pointed  to  a 
spiritual  cleansing.  Without  this  they  were 
all  meaningless.  Christ  therefore  adopted  a 
Jewish  rite,  and  made  it  a  Gospel  rite.  He 
did  this  of  choice,  and  did  it  without  any 
essential  change  in  its  nature,  or  any  change 
whatever  in  its  mode.  He  lifted  it  to  a 
higher  dignity,  and  gave  emphasis  to  its 
meaning,  but  otherwise  left  it  unchanged. 
Hence  the  absence  of  all  explanation  or  re- 
striction as  to  its  use  or  meaning.     It  passed 


292  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

over  to  its  new  relation,  taking  up  in  the 
transition  but  little  that  was  not  already  in  it. 
As  it  had  ever  pointed  to  a  moral  cleansing 
of  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  it  ever 
must.  It  has  no  other  meaning.  All  the 
watery  ablutions  of  the  law  pointed  to  the 
work  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  soul;  and 
most  of  them  are  known  to  have  been  by 
sprinkling.  And  all  the  prophetic  representa- 
tions of  the  moral  purifications  under  the 
Messiah's  reign,  are  descriptions  of  the  sprink- 
ling of  water.  All  the  metaphorical  declara- 
tions of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  under 
the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  point  to  the 
descent,  the  falling,  the  outpouring,  of  the 
Spirit;  and  whenever,  in  type,  or  prophecy, 
or  promise,  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
represented  by  water,  it  is  by  the  sprinkling 
of  water,  or  by  its  pouring  out  as  in  rain. 
And  never  once  is  immersion,  in  t}^pe,  or 
prophecy,  or  promise,  in  the  Old  Testament 
or  the  New,  made  a  symbol  or  emblem  of  the 
work  of  the  Spirit.  This  is  a  most  significant 
fact,  which  can  not  be  accidental.  It  has  a 
meaning  which  harmonizes  delightfully  with 
the  view  of  baptism  which  we  advocate,  and 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  293 

which  arrays  itself  in  the  most  positive  antag- 
onism to  the  immersion  hypothesis. 

John's  baptism,  Hke  all  the  baptisms  of 
the  Jews,  foreshadowed  the  outpouring  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  This  is  his  meaning  when  he 
says:  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto 
repentance:  but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is 
mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  wor- 
thy to  bear:  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire."  Look  at  it: 
"I  baptize,"  **he  shall  baptize;"  *'!  baptize 
with  water,''  "he  shall  baptize  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.''  Can  there  be  any  difference  in  the 
mode?  There  surely  can  not  be,  so  far  as 
the  language  is  concerned.  Then  which  is 
the  real  baptism?  Evidently,  that  which 
the  ''mightier"  shall  administer.  And  which 
baptism  shall  determine  the  mode?  Evi- 
dently, the  real  baptism;  and  the  emblem- 
atic, the  outward,  the  baptism  with  water, 
must  take  its  form  from  that. 

And  this  brings  us  to  the  vital  question, 
What  is  the  mode  of  that  baptism  \^ich 
Christ  administers  when  he  baptizes  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire?  We  are  obliged 
to  be  cautious  when  we  speak  of  the  mode 


294  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

of  the  Spirit's  work.  In  reality,  we  can  not 
comprehend  it;  but  then  God  condescends  to 
represent  to  us  the  manner  of  his  operations 
by  metaphors  and  symbols,  so  that  in  our 
conceptions  of  his  work  we  are  permitted  to 
give  it  form  and  method.  Perhaps  this  is 
necessary  to  distinctness;  and  there  may  be  a 
broader  basis  for  the  doctrine  of  correspond- 
ences in  the  relations  of  the  natural  and  spir- 
itual, in  God's  great  universe,  than  we  now 
suspect;  but,  however  real  or  however  unreal 
in  fact  the  analogy  between  the  water  and 
the  Spirit  may  be  in  regard  to  mode,  the 
represented  analogy  is  to  us  real,  and  the 
terms  employed  in  the  representation  are  to 
have  the  same  force  and  meaning  as  if  the 
mode  of  the  Spirit  were  as  literally  expressed 
and  as  readily  comprehended  as  is  the  case 
with  the  water.  In  other  words,  when  the 
inspired  writer  says  the  Spirit  is  ''poured," 
the  word  ''pour"  has  the  same  meaning  as 
when  it  is  said  that  water  is  poured.  We  are 
not  to  go  beyond  the  represented  analogy  to 
ascertain  the  basis  of  the  comparison,  or  to 
discover  the  actual  motion  of.  the  Spirit,  be- 
fore we  conceive  of  the  action  of  the  Spirit 


SPIRIT  BAPTIS?^!. 


295 


as  expressed  by  the  word.  Such  mental 
effort  is  neither  required  nor  possible.  It  is 
enough  that  the  writer  assumes  a  sufficient 
basis  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  applies  to 
the  Spirit  the  word  which  conveys  a  definite 
idea  of  mode  when  applied  to  water.  That 
same  idea  of  mode,  whether  absolutely  or 
philosophically  correct  or  not,  is  to  be  ac- 
cepted as  the  idea  which  the  writer  intended 
us  to  receive;  and  it  is  the  only  idea  that  is 
either  possible  or  lawful  for  us  to  receive. 
Hence  we  are  bound  to  accept  the  statement 
that  the  Spirit  was  poured,  as  conveying  to 
us  as  distinct  an  idea  of  mode  as  if  it  were 
said  the  water  was  poured.  The  word  pour 
has  precisely  the  same  force  in  either  in- 
stance. It  may  be  that  all  allusion  to  the 
mode  of  the  Spirit  is  figurative;  that  there  is 
no  positive  basis  for  any  comparison  between 
the  pouring  of  water  and  the  pouring  of  the 
Spirit;  that  the  idea  of  mode  attached  to  the 
Spirit  by  the  word  pour  comes  entirely  from 
the  water,  and  that  the  water  is  made  the 
emblem  of  the  Spirit  arbitrarily,  and  inde- 
pendent of  all  jjctual  resemblance;  still,  even 
in  that  case,  the  word  pour  relates  to  mode, 


296  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

and  expresses  mode,  and  proves  beyond  all 
question  the  mode  of  the  use  of  the  Avater, 
as  positively  as  if  the  resemblance  between 
the  water  and  the  Spirit  were  real,  and  actu- 
ally demonstrable. 

That  the  word  pour  is  applied  to  the 
Spirit,  is  not  a  question.  The  Scriptures 
abound  with  proofs  and  illustrations.  But 
does  the  word  pour  express  the  action  of 
the  Spirit  in  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit?  If  it 
does,  it  expresses  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's 
baptism,  and  therefore  what  should  be  the 
mode  of  the  emblematic  baptism,  as  posi- 
tively as  if  it  were  applied  directly  to  the 
action  of  the  water  in  the  external  rite.  We 
come,  then,  to  the  turning-point  in  the  argu- 
ment, and  find  the  testimony  overwhelmingly 
in  favor  of  the  pouring.  The  statement  is 
brief  It  is  that  the  same  specific  action  of  the 
Spirit  is  called  a  baptism  and  a  pouiing  out. 
The  word  baptize  is  in  the  promise,  and  the 
word  pour  is  in  the  fulfillment;  and  these  an- 
swer the  one  to  the  other,  so  as  to  affirm  the 
baptism  to  be  by  pouring.  "He  shall  bap- 
tize you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire." 
This    is   the    promise    as   made   by  John    the 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  297 

Baptist;  but  we  have  it  in  the  Savior's  own 
words  (Acts  i,  5) :  "  For  John  truly  baptized 
with  water;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  Thus 
the  promise.  The  fulfillment  was  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  The  disciples  were  all  assem- 
bled, waiting  the  promise,  and  praying  for  its 
fulfillment.  Suddenly  the  power  came,  and 
**they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  began  to  speak  wdth  other  tongues,  as 
the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."  When  the 
excitement  ensued,  and  they  were  charged 
with  drunkenness,  Peter  repelled  the  charge, 
and  explained  by  claiming  that  the  prophecy 
of  Joel  was  fulfilled,  thus:  "But  this  is  that 
which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel;  And 
it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  saith 
God,  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all 
flesh :  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall 
prophesy,  and  your  young  men  shall  see  vis- 
ions, and  your  old  men  shall  dream  dreams: 
and  on  my  servants  and  on  my  handmaidens 
I  will  pour  out  in  those  days  of  my  Spirit; 
and  they  shall  prophesy."  (Acts  ii,  16-18.) 
The  fact  is  not  to  be  disputed  that  the  pour- 
ing of  the  Spirit,   as  here  described,  fulfilled 


298  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  promise  of  baptism  by  the  Spirit.  I  do 
not  say  that  the  Avord  pour,  as  appHed  to  the 
Spirit,  means  aU  that  baptize  means  in  the 
promise.  That  is  not  the  point.  Baptize  is 
generic,  and  pour  is  specific;  but  the  action 
of  the  Spirit,  whose  mode  is  expressed  by 
pour,  is  the  identical  action  contemplated  in 
the  promise  of  a  baptism.  It  is  a  baptism 
by  pouring,  as  certainly  as  there  is  meaning 
in  words. 

Such  a  fact  as  this,  so  utterly  confounding 
to  the  teaching  of  the  exclusive  immersion- 
ists,  could  not  be  suffered  to  stand  without 
an  effort  to  break  its  force.  It  is  claimed 
that  the  apostles  were  so  overwhelmed  with 
the  Spirit  as  to  be  immersed  in  it.  They 
were  doubtless  overwhelmed  with  its  power 
and  influence,  for  a  time;  but  they  were  filled 
with  it  —  it  took  possession  of  their  souls. 
But  this  does  not  indicate  the  mode.  That 
is  expressed  by  the  word  *'pour, "  and  by 
nothing  else.  Impressed  with  this  view  of 
the  matter,  and  yet  determined  to  find  im- 
mersion here  because  baptism  is  certainly 
here,  some  have  invented  an  exposition  that 
secures  an  immersion  by  pouring.     They  tell 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  299 

US  that  the  Spirit  was  poured  out  so  copi- 
ously that  it  filled  all  the  room  where  the 
apostles  were  sitting,  and  that,  consequently, 
they  were  immersed  in  the  Spirit,  as  we  are 
im.mersed  in  the  atmosphere  that  surrounds 
us  and  fills  the  rooms  we  occupy.  This  is 
crude,  and  materialistic  in  conception,  and, 
unfortunately  for  the  theory,  it  is  without 
favor  in  the  record.  There  is  nothing  said 
about  the  room  being  filled  by  the  Spirit. 
The  statement  is  that  "suddenly  there  came 
a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing  mighty 
wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where  they 
were  sitting."  This  "sound"  preceded  the 
coming  of  the  Spirit,  and  heralded  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  promise;  but  it  was  not  the 
Spirit.  If  the  apostles  were  immersed  in 
that  which  filled  the  house,  they  were  im- 
mersed in  the  "sound;"  and  I  do  not  know 
but  we  might  admit  this,  as  there  is  nothing 
said  about  a  baptism  of  "sound!"  and  pos- 
sibly we  could  afford  to  leave  to  the  immer- 
sionist  both  the  noise  and  the  wind.  But, 
really,  the  effort  to  make  an  Immersion  out 
of  this  baptism  of  the  Spirit  must  prove  a 
hopeless  task. 


300  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

There  are  other  allusions  to  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit,  that  indicate  the  mode  of  baptism. 
When  Peter  opened  the  door  of  the  kingdomt 
to  Gentiles  in  Cesarea,  in  the  house  of  Cor- 
nelius, it  is  said:  "While  he  y^t  spake  these 
words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which 
heard  the  word.  And  they  of  the  circum- 
cision which  believed  were  astonished,  as 
many  as  came  with  Peter,  because  that  on 
the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  (Acts  x,  44,  45.)  The 
two  words,  ''fell"  and  *' poured,"  agree  well 
together,  and  each  expresses  the  mode  of  the 
baptism,  if  this  was  a  baptism  ;  and  that  it 
was,  is  seen  in  Peter's  account  of  it,  when  he 
returned  to  Jerusalem  and  rehearsed  the 
matter  in  the  presence  of  the  apostles  and 
brethren.  His  words  are:  ''And  as  I  began 
to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on 
us  at  the  beginning.  Then  remembered  I  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John 
indeed  baptized  with  water;  but  ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Acts  xi, 
15,  16.)  The  reference  to  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit,  when  it  ''fell  on  us  at  the  beginning," 
not  only  fixes  the  mode  of  the  baptism  on 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  3OI 

the  day  of  Pentecost,  but  settles  the  point 
that  this  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Gentiles 
was  also  a  baptism.  These  persons  were 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  when  it 
fell  upon  them.  This  is  confirmed  beyond 
doubt  by  the  subsequent  language:  "Then 
remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how 
that  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized  with  wa- 
ter; but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost."  If  this  does  not  mean  that  they 
were  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  when  it 
was  poured  out,  and  fell  upon  them,  then 
indeed  it  must  be  true  that  words  are  em- 
ployed to  conceal  ideas,  rather  than  to  convey 
them.  I  know  that  it  is  said  that  these 
words  which  express  mode,  such  as  ''fell," 
"poured,"  and  other  expressions,  as  "shed 
forth,"  "shed  on  us,"  and  the  like,  can  only 
be  applied  to  the  Spirit  figuratively,  or  by 
way  of  metaphor;  but  suppose  we  agree  to 
this,  what  then?  We  have  already  spoken 
on  this  point;  but  we  turn  to  it  again.  If 
these  words  contain  a  metaphor,  or  are  ap- 
plied to  the  Spirit  only  figuratively,  the 
same  is  true  of  the  word  baptize;  and  it 
is    true,   also,    that    the    figure    employed    or 


302  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

implied  has  a  basis  somewhere,  and  that  can 
only  be  in  the  emblem  that  represents  the 
Spirit's  action ;  that  is,  the  water  as  used  in 
baptism.  If  this  be  true,  and  we  shall  not 
dispute  it,  then  the  argument  for  the  mode  is 
quite  as  strong  as  when  real  mode  is  as- 
signed to  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  if  not  even 
stronger.  In  this  case,  it  is  said  to  be  bap- 
tism, because  the  water  symbol  is  baptism.; 
and  it  is  said  to  be  "poured,"  because  the 
water  that  represents  it  is  ''poured;"  and  it 
is  said  to  "fall"  on  the  people,  because  the 
Avater  of  baptism  "falls"  on  the  people. 
Thus  the  mode  of  the  baptism  is  determined, 
and  put  beyond  the  reach  of  argument,  in 
any  view  that  can  be  taken. 

But  we  must  not  forget  that  there  was  a 
double  baptism  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  In 
the  promise  of  the  baptism  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  "fire"  was  mentioned,  and  we  find 
the  "fire"  also  in  the  fulfillment.  "He  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  a7id  ivith 
fire.''  How  were  they  baptized  with  "fire?" 
This  promise  is  so  coupled  with  the  promise 
of  the  Spirit  that  we  look  for  the  fulfillment 
together.      And  so  we  find  it.      The  record  is 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  303 

that  the  fire  followed  the  sound  that  filled 
the  house.  ''And  there  appeared  unto  them 
cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon 
each  of  them."  If  this  did  not  fill  the 
promise  to  baptize  with  fire,  that  promise 
was  never  filled;  but  if  it  did,  here  is  a  bap- 
tism without  immersion.  The  apostles  were 
baptized  with  fire  when  it  sat  upon  them,  in 
the  semblance  of  cloven  or  double  tongues 
of  flame.  As  water  is  the  standing  emblem 
or  symbol  of  the  Spirit  in  its  gracious  work 
in  the  soul,  so  the  visible  tongues  of  fire,  on 
that  memorable  occasion,  appeared  as  the 
symbol  of  the  Spirit  in  its  miracle-working 
power;  and  as  this  extraordinary  gift  of  mir- 
acles is  not  continued,  and  was  not  to  be 
permanent,  so  the  fire  sym^bol  was  not  con- 
tinued. But  a  general  discussion  of  this 
matter  is  not  required.  I  leave  the  plain, 
unimpeachable,  and  unanswerable  fact  before 
you,  that  the  apostles  were  baptized  "with 
fire,"  when  their  bodies  were  not  enveloped, 
but  when  it  sat  upon  them. 

Good  men,  when  cramped,  will  sometimes 
do  strange  things.  A  few  immersionists, 
finding  the  stubborn  fact  of  this  fire-baptism 


304  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

confronting  them,  have  assumed  that  the 
Baptist  addressed  two  classes,  the  good  and 
the  bad,  and  meant  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit 
for  one  class,  and  the  baptism  of  fire  for  the 
other — making  it  mean  the  unquenchable  fire 
of  hell !  To  mention  so  preposterous  a  thing 
is  to  refute  it.  The  promise  in  full  is  made 
to  the  same  persons:  ''He  shall  baptize  j/^^^ 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire;"  and  the 
same  persons  experienced  the  fulfillment  at 
Pentecost.  I  only  mention  this  to  show  the 
lengths  to  which  prejudice  will  push  men. 

We  have  reached  a  point  where  we  must 
look  for  little  things.  Occasionally  we  en- 
counter the  remark:  "If  all  you  say  is  true, 
you  have  two  modes  of  baptism,  at  the  least. 
You  have  shown  that  the  baptisms  under  the 
law  were  by  'sprinkling,'  and  that  these  rep- 
resented the  work  of  the,  Spirit;  and  now 
you  find  the  same  work  of  the  Spirit  repre- 
sented by  *  pouring.'  How  is  this?"  Well, 
all  this  is  true;  the  Scriptures  contain  it  all. 
But  then  there  is  nothing  shockingly  para- 
doxical in  it.  All  the  expressions  applied  to 
the  Spirit  may  be  used  of  the  water  in  bap- 
tism.     It   was    ''poured,"    it    "fell,"   it   was 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  305 

"shed  forth,"  it  was  ''shed  on  us."  All  this 
may  be  said  of  rain.  It  was  ''poured  out," 
it  "fell,"  it  was  "shed  forth,"  "shed  on  us," 
etc. ;  and  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  is  often 
compared  to  the  descent  of  rain,  in  its  com- 
ing and  in  its  effects;  and  yet  there  is  no 
impropriety  in  saying  we  are  sprinkled  by 
the  falling  rain.  The  result  is,  there  is  no 
substantial  difference  between  pouring  and 
sprinkling.  They  are  not  different — certainly 
not  conflicting — modes  of  baptism,  and  both 
are  Scriptural.  The  water,  applied  to  the 
person  more  or  less  copiously,  all  else  being 
right,  will  constitute  Scriptural  baptism. 

We  now  come  back  to  the  fact  that  im- 
mersion is  not  commanded.  Certainly  it  is 
not,  unless  the  word  baptize  contains  the  idea 
so  distinctly  and  exclusively  that  it  means  im- 
merse and  nothing  else.  But  we  have  seen 
that  it  does  not.  It  is  a  generic  term,  and 
can  not  be  restricted  to  mere  mode;  and,  if 
generic,  it  does  not  express  mode  at  all,  any 
more  than  does  "wet,"  "wash,"  "stain," 
"dye,"  or  any  number  of  such  words.  Bible 
use  sustains  this  position,  as  we  have  seen; 
and  classic  usage  sustains  it;  and  so  do  all 
20 


306  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  authorities,  when  rightly  understood  and 
appHed.  There  is  no  specific  term  in  the 
EngHsh  language  that  is  an  exact  equivalent 
of  the  Greek  word,  not  one  that  will  express 
and  exhaust  its  meaning.  If  the  Savfor  had 
wanted  a  specific  term  to  express  the  mode, 
as  he  would  have  done  if  he  had  intended  to 
command  the  apostles  to  immerse  the  people, 
he  could  easily  have  found  one.  If  he  had 
used  kataduo  or  katapontizo,  there  would  have 
been  no  doubt  about  his  meaning;  but  he 
passed  by  specific  words  of  this  class,  that 
express  the  idea  of  going  down  under  the 
water  specifically,  and  adopted  the  generic 
word,  which  the  Jews  used  to  describe,  in 
a  general  way,  all  their  religious  washings, 
without  regard  to  mode,  while,  in  point  of 
fact,  the  most  of  them  v/ere  by  sprinkling. 
This  is  an  overwhelming  argument  against  all 
exclusiveness  in  this  matter. 

Immersion  is  not  necessary  to  meet  the 
spiritual  import  of  baptism.  Baptism  rep- 
resents the  moral  cleansing  of  the  soul  by 
the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  moral 
cleansing  is  all  represented  by  the  use  of 
water,   but  always  by  pouring   or  sprinkling. 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  307 

Let  us  read  a  few  examples:  "I  will  pour 
water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods 
upon  the  dry  ground:  I  will  pour  my  Spirit 
upon  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon  thine 
offspring."  (Isaiah  xliv,  3.)  *'For  it  is  time 
to  seek  the  Lord,  till  he  come  and  rai?i  right- 
eousness upon  you."  (Hosea  x,  12.)  "He 
shall  come  down  like  rain  upon  the  mown 
grass."  (Psalm  Ixxii,  6.)  "Then  will  I 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall 
be  clean:  from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from 
all  your  idols,  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new 
heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit 
will  I  put  within  you:  and  I  will  take  away 
the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will 
give  you  a  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put 
my  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to 
walk  in  my  statutes,  and  ye  shall  keep  my 
judgments,  and  do  them."  (Ezekiel  xxxvi, 
25-27.)  "His  visage  was  so  marred  more 
than  any  man,  and  his  form  more  than  the 
sons  of  men:  so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  na- 
tions," etc.  (Isaiah  Hi,  14,  15.)  Some  of 
these  relate  to  the  moral  cleansing,  and  some 
to  the  comforting,  refreshing,  and  renewing 
power    of    the    Holy    Spirit;     but,    in    every 


308  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

instance  the  work  of  the  Spirit  is  represented 
by  water,  and  always  without  the  slightest 
allusion  to  immersion.  The  effect  of  the 
Spirit's  work  is  sometimes  called  ** washing," 
but  not  so  as  to  include  or  imply  immersion. 
"  Wash  me  thoroughly  from  mine  iniquity, 
and  cleanse  me  from  my  sin.  .  .  .  Purge 
me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean;  wash 
me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow."  (Psalm 
li,  2-y.)  "Wash  you,  make  you  clean;  put 
away  the  evil  of  your  doings."  (Isaiah  i,  i6.) 
In  the  New  Testament,  this  moral  cleansing 
is  called  *'the  zvashing  of  regeneration,  and 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he 
shed  071  us  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ." 
(Titus  iii,  5,  6.)  When  the  cleansing  is  by 
blood,  it  is  by  the  sprinkling  of  blood ;  when 
It  is  by  the  ashes  of  the  burnt-offering,  it  is 
by  the  sprinkling  of  the  ashes;  and  when  it 
is  by  water,  it  is  by  the  pouring  or  sprinkling 
of  water.  Now,  if  the  moral  cleansing,  which 
is  figuratively  set  forth  in  so  many  ways,  and 
always  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  is  repre- 
sented in  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  is  it  not 
sufficient  that  the  water  be  used,  in  this  em- 
blematic washing,   as   it  always   was   used  in 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  309 

other  emblematic  representations  of  precisely 
the  same  thing?  So  it  seems  to  me,  and  so 
it  must  appear  .still  more  strikingly,  when  we 
find  similar  words,  as  ''pour,"  ''fall,"  "shed," 
applied  directly  to  the  action  of  the  Spirit, 
which  effects  the  cleansing,  and  which  is 
itself  a  baptism. 

Immersion  is  not  universally  practicable. 
The  Gospel  is  intended  for  "all  the  world" — 
for  "every  creature."  It  is  therefore  adapted 
to  every  clime  and  every  condition  in  life, 
and  all  its  appointments  should  be  applicable 
to  all.  But  there  are  large  sections  of  coun- 
try, inhabited  by  multitudes  of  human  beings, 
where  immersion  is  impracticable  for  a  large 
portion  of  the  year.  In  those  countries 
where  brandy  and  mercury  freeze  in  Winter; 
where  the  people  crowd  together  in  huts,  and 
stop  the  openings  with  ice;  where  they  pro- 
cure water  for  necessary  uses  by  melting 
snow  and  ice;  where  nearly  all  streams  and 
lakes  freeze  to  the  bottom,  immersion  would 
be  exceedingly  difficult  and  burdensome,  if 
at  all  practicable.  In  case  of  the  sick,  every 
one  knows  that  immersion  is  often  out  of  the 
question.       Instances    of    persons    in    feeble 


3IO  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

health  getting  their  death  by  exposure  in 
being  immersed,  are  not  infrequent.  Many- 
were  impressed,  during  the  late  war,  with  the 
awkwardness  of  immersionists  in  the  chap- 
laincy. They  were  called  to  minister  to  the 
sick  and  dying,  to  the  maimed  and  wounded, 
where  immersion  was  impossible.  This  awk- 
wardness was  increased  to  inexpressible  em- 
barrassment with  some,  who  taught  that  im- 
mersion was  a  condition  of  forgiveness,  and 
the  act  of  induction  into  Christ.  But  any 
one  visiting  the  hospitals  of  a  great  army  can 
see  the  impossibility  of  insi:>ting  on  such  a 
rite.  These  difficulties  are  real.  I  know 
they  are  treated  lightly,  and  laughed  at  as 
trifling;  but  this  does  not  remove  them. 
The  argument  is,  that  either  God  has  en- 
joined a  duty  to  be  perpetually  and  univer- 
sally binding,  which,  for  a  large  portion  of 
the  year,  is  impracticable,  burdensome,  or 
dangerous  for  millions  of  the  race,  or  else  he 
has  not  enjoined  immersion  as  the  exclusive 
mode  of  baptism.  The  Gospel  comes  to  all, 
in  every  age,  in  every  condition,  in  the  polar 
^snows  or  the  burning  sands,  in  arid  wastes  or 
mountain  fastnesses,  in  palace  or  hospital,  in 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  3 1 1 

the  air  of  freedom  or  within  prison  walls; 
and  it  comes  with  all  its  comforts  and  helps, 
and  in  perfect  adaptation  to  all.  But,  tested 
by  this  rule,  exclusive  immersion  is  another 
system. 


THE  END. 


